I think that you oversimplified the situation to fit your thesis. I believe that you should have included "status" in your typology. I do not believe that RBG was motivated by "power" - she liked being on the Supreme Court.
I am not sure the status would drop a lot. She might have been going to a lot of parties only because was a Sup. Justice, but that seems a little unlikely a status issue. It seems more likely that the status was a function of power: everyone treats them as high status because they have power, and only because they have power.
I'm reading "liked" here as "fun/hobby/life_meaning". Plenty of people never retired and it's not over power, etc but purely it's who they are or they like their job. I see that a lot with vocational people rather than occupational people, i.e. it's not "work" but an "enjoyable hobby that pays" hence why would they ever "retire".
RGB, the cunt she was, may have simply enjoyed the job though I make no claim as to the truth of the OP.
That said I'm inclined to think that doesn't apply to politicians as they don't "do" anything that doesn't involve power, i.e. I'm not sold on the "vocational" thing if you can't do your hobby alone as, if you need validation, then it's status thing as opposed to a enjoy doing thing.
That's a good point: if your job involves exercising power, and you really like that part of the job, you are liking the power. In theory RGB could have done all the other aspects of the job by working writing a blog on law opinions. The only difference would have been that her opinions wouldn't have shaped US law. It would seem that the exercise of power over people is the desirable part for them, just like the exercise of power over wood is the desirable part for a carpenter.
I'm inclined to agree with this thesis, but I think Ginsburg is weird example to cite as someone driven by power-hunger. The Rehnquist and early Roberts court was by all accounts simply a fun place to work. The people genuinely liked each other (Scalia and Ginsburg were famously very close friends despite their philosophical differences) and SCOTUS is a 8 months a year dream job for the legal nerd personality type. Obviously she didn't make her ideological goals top priority, but to call that power-hunger is facile.
I'm not sure there are many other occupation with such a high proportion exiting due to death by old age. Relative to other occupations, that seems an extremely low relinquishment rate.
Another aspect of political power, which I learned first hand. I once ran for office as a Libertarian, no chance whatsoever of getting more than 3% of the vote, let alone winning.
I was geeked who didn’t date much, but I immediately had four women all wanting to go out with me. Two of them were Democrats who didn’t even agree with my politics, but they still were chasing after me.
Apparently, women are attracted to men who have power. Explains some of the appeal of political office, and, say, Bill Clinton.
I was thinking about this as I read an article in Epoch Times about Justin Trudeau. Now, JT is not a dictator, to be fair. He was democratically elected. (Well, except his party did not actually win the most votes, but the most "seats" in both 2019 and 2021). But he no longer represents the will of the people. If an election were held today, he would lose. By a landslide. The majority of Canadians want him out. And yet he's still in. Cause he doesn't have to have an election now.
I guess you could say he still has constitutional legitimacy, but no longer has democratic legitimacy. Like a dictator, he refuses to quit, even though he is well aware that the people don't want him in charge. The media keep asking hwhy he doesn't quit. His response: "We've got more work to do."
I think they've done enough. I have radically different values than JT and his "Liberal" party. Their decisions and policies often fail to achieve their goals. But even if they did, I don't like his goals!
But this is isn't about me. My point is, despite my personal differences, with JT, I think he has good intentions. I think he truly thinks he is making Canada better. And that, given a bit more time, his continued policies and decisions will continue to make Canada better and make things better for Canadians. And I think he thinks that, given more time, policies and decisions that he made years ago will finally pay off. For example, all the wonderful "investments" that he has made over the years, will finally grow the economy and the budget will finally "balance itself". If he leaves now, the next leader won't "stay the course" and will ruin things. They'll trample his flowers just as they're about to sprout!
In a nutshell, he is clinging to power cause he wants to continue making Canada better (from his perspective).
You might say: "See! Greed for power!!!! That's hwhat I meant!" But I don't think that's hwhat you meant. They way you are describing it, as I understand it, politicos cling to power cause they get their (almost sexual) jollies from seeing people conform to their power. Like the inner party in 1984: "Imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever".
I think that's ridiculous. I think most world leaders, past or present, democratic or not, have/had selfless intentions. Just things didn't always pan out the way they hoped. They were always just one Great Purge away from Utopia.
I was thinking of this a bit more. Maybe it's not necessarily selflessness that motivates politicians, per se.
But I'm not sure hwhat word I can use to describe it. Something like will-to-power. The drive to see your ideas manifested.
Can you understand the motivations of an inventor who invents a cool new invention that he believes will change the world. But he doesn't have the capital to develop it. So he patents it, for now. He tries to sell his patent rights, but others' don't see the same value in it that he does. So, he sells the patent rights for $1 to a company who promises to mass produce and market his invention. He looks forward to seeing his invention in every home. And he will be proud to have made his mark on the world. It's not about the money. It's not even about a selfless desire to make the world better through his invention. It's about a desire to make his mark on the world. A desire for the pride of being proven right that his ideas were as awesome as he thought they were. Can you understand his motivations?
Can you understand the motivations of Howard Roark in the Fountainhead who just wants to see the building he designs get built? Can you understand his motivations when he designed the affordable housing complex? He wasn't in it for the selfless desire to help the poor. He wasn't in it for the money or even the fame. He let Peter take the credit. He was in it just to see his ideas manifested. To see that he could solve many of the world's problems just by building cheaper housing. To see that, thanks to his idea, there is less homelessness. To prove to himself and the world that he is right.
Even you, yourself, sir, you have many ideas that could make the world better. But you sit on the sidelines watching the powers that be make mistakes and just shake your head and say "told you so". Isn't it kinda like being a backseat driver? Don't you ever wish you could drive? Don't you ever wish you could create your own Caplatopia with no zoning regs and open borders? And see how it quickly becomes the best countries in the world. And then, you can TRULY say: "TOLD YOU SO!"
I think _that_, my friend, is the motivation of politicians. Not getting jollies out of oppressing people.
There is some speculation that some politicos are in it for the money! Just look at how highly paid Singapore's PM is!
Likewise, Canada has pensions for Members of Parliament (MPs). But you need to serve 6 years in order to qualify.
Jagmeet Singh, the leader of the New Democratic Party (NDP) made a deal to keep PM Justin Trudeau in power until 2025. Coincidentally, Singh was first elected in 2019. Thus, he will have served for six years by 2025. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XF2ayWcJfxo
Likewise, Mike Duffy was appointed as a Senator. He was previously a national news anchor, so you think he'd have enough money, right? But hwhen he was a Senator, he took advantage of the rules to get re-imbursed for two houses, by pretending he wasn't from Ottawa, even though he totally was residing in Ottawa before he was appointed as Senator. Or something like that. This was a huge scandal. And there was a subsequent trial. But he was acquitted of any wrong-doing.
Likewise, I think that Dear Leader Kim Jong Un is a kleptocrat. This is actually good news! The Republic of Korea can surely afford to bribe him more than he can ever make as the Supreme Leader of the DPRK. Perhaps they can buy him off, pay him a glorious pension for life, whilst allowing the North Korean people to not starve to death and watch all the K-Dramas they want!
That being said, I don't think greed for money is the primary motivating factor behind all or even most politicos. Trump, for instance. I sincerely doubt he's in it for the money. If anything, being president prolly comes with a huge opportunity cost for him!
I think if politicians were really in it for the love of power, I think they would be far, far worse. Like they might bring back "droit du seigneur".
But, maybe by "power", you mean simply staying in their decision-making position as long as possible? Not necessarily maxxing out on hwhatever they can get away with hwhilst they're in their position. OK, but look at the track records of US Presidents. Most quit after 2 terms, even though that wasn't constitutionally required.
Even sleepy Joe Biden is starting to come around. I don't think he's refusing to retire because he just wants to hold on to power. I think he sincerely thinks Kamala (or anyone else for that matter) can't win. I think he's right. According to polls, Kamala Harris is likely to lose to Trump. So would any other potential Dem candidate, including Biden. But Kamala is slightly less likely to lose than him. But maybe that's because America barely knows her. Perhaps, he, rightly, believes that as America gets to know Kamala Harris more, they'll, rightly, start to miss Biden!
Even given the now constitutional 2-term limit, if politcos really want to cling to power, wouldn't they run for congress or Senate and then for Speaker of the House and/or House/Senate Majority leader? After all, they're experience as President would teach them that such positions hold a lot of power, as previous holders of the position were probably a thorn in their side, keeping them from implementing their agenda, as much as possible. OK, it may not be as powerful as being President, but still more powerful than writing a few books, giving a few speeches, atbp. Diba?
I think most politicians are in it cause they really believe in their agenda. They really believe they can craft the perfect society. Or, at least, a much better one. But, once they get into power, they realize: it's harder than it looks! The Speaker of the House gets in their way! The Senate Majority Leader gets in their way. The Supreme court gets in their way. Their cabinet gets in their way. Government employees get in their way. The States get in their way. The People get in their way! They say that Stalin was just one Great Purge away from Utopia! https://www.theonion.com/report-suggests-stalin-was-just-one-great-purge-away-fr-1825691925
Have you ever played Poltical Simulation games? There's this one I got from Steam called: Democracy 3. You can choose various laws, taxes and policies. I think the goal can really be whatever you want: economic growth, certain stats or whatever. But you're limited by a few things, namely: political capital and elections.
Political capital, in the game, is in the form of points. Change must be slow. Each change costs points. You only have so many points per quarter to change things.
I think, in real life, it is similar to "buy-in". Even if you have the power to change things, you need to get "buy-in". You see this in companies. Management insists employees switch to a new software system. Some middle managers don't like the new system, so they keep using the old system, resist switching to the new system, don't insist on their employees using the new system, atbp.
Likewise, in politics, look at Justin Trudeau. From 2015 to 2019, he had a majority government. hWhen the leader of a party gets a majority government, Canada basically functions as a one-party state for the next 4 to 5 years. The PM could appoint members of his cabinet, Senate or Supreme Court without confirmation from the Senate or House of Commons. Most senators were either appointed by him or appointed by his Liberal party, anyway. A majority of the Members of Parliament (MPs) House of Commons was Liberal. If any Liberal MP DARED oppose his agenda and not vote the way he wanted, he could kick them out of the Liberal Caucus and bar them from ever running as a Liberal again! Even speaking time is allocated by party and the party leader gets to choose which of his members get to speak. So, for the most part, Liberal MPs were basically a bunch of overpaid puppets / yes men. And yet ... Some STILL opposed his agenda. Most famously, his Attorney General, Jody Wilson-Raybould. Even in one-party states, you still need to get your party on board.
Even in a dictatorship, without a parliament or congress, you still need to get your staff on-board, from your cabinet down to government bureaucrats. They might pretend to be loyal but secretly work against you, if they are not 100% on-board with your agenda.
You also need to get the people on board. Just look at all the people who openly flaunted stupid covid rules! The pandemic taught me just how little power the government actually has! Oh sure, you can threaten to arrest the people, if they don't comply. In Ontario, the Premier put in a stay-at-home order which authorized and directed the police to stop and question the reasons of anybody found outside their home. The cops just said: "yea, we're not gonna do that".
The point is: change is difficult. It is difficult to find even ONE person who agrees with you on everything. Let alone hundreds of MPs, thousands of cops, soldiers and government employees and millions of people. Even when they DO agree, some fail to implement your agenda due to sheer laziness or incompetence.
So, I think a lot of heads of governments end up realizing that running a country is harder than it looks!
So, in Democracy 3, there's a setting to disable "political capital". I pick that setting.
But then, I implement all the policies I want: I drastically cut taxes, ban abortion, legalize immigration, drastically cut services, eliminate public pensions, replace government health-care spending with tax deductions for medical costs, atbp.
But then I see my government sinking deep into debt! hWhy?! Haven't the makers of this game ever heard of the Laffer curve? Or trickle down economics? Or maybe my policies will work in the looooong run. Yea, that's it! I just need more time! I'll show them! But hwhat's this? There's an election? hWhat? I lost by a landslide?? The people of this country are too stupid! They don't deserve to vote! Is there a way I can disable elections in this game???
So, I sorta understand politicians. Even Justin Trudeau. Although I can't stand him, I don't think he's hungry for power for the sake of power. I think he honestly believed that his deficit spending on things like the "Strategic Innovation Fund" would grow the economy and, thus, increase government revenue. And the budget really would "balance itself". Well, it's been almost 9 years and it hasn't. And Canadians are finally starting to realize that. But, I can see, from his perspective, he's thinking: "Maybe just give it a few more years. They'll see!" I really think he sincerely believes that his policies will work and they will make Canada great again, given enough time. He's wrong. But I do think he has "good" intentions (by his own sick, twisted definition of "good"). I don't think he's staying on just out of power lust.
Likewise, I think most politicians, however they come to power, want to get or keep power to implement their vision, which they truly believe will be good for the country. I think most politicians are not hungry for power for the sake of power.
That being said, do I think there are some politicians that are just power hungry? Yea. Putin, for example. hWhen constitutional limits prevented him from serving more than two consecutive terms as President, he spend a term as Prime Minister and then ran for President again. There are some politicians like this. But I think they are rare.
I disagree; my observation is that most people have a cynical enough view of politicians to believe they are more motivated by power than a desire to make the world a better place. Many people would even concede that about politicians they are ideologically sympathetic towards, but they view it as a lesser of two evils. Whether someone views business people as power-hungry depends entirely on whether they are pro or anti-market. I think it depends entirely on a case-by-case basis whether influential figures in business are driven more by power, fame, money, or some combination of all three.
I disagree that this is evidence of power-hunger being the primary motive. Accepting that you’re senile and it would be best for everyone if you give up and just go wait for death is an extremely psychologically taxing thing to ask of someone. Saying this proves their motives are impure is akin to arguing that someone who purports to be altruistic is actually a self interested sociopath because they balk at sacrificing their life for a younger stranger or being unable to accept that their own child is guilty of a serious crime that would condemn to life in prison. Someone’s morals breaking down under extreme pressure isn’t proof that they lack any morals, and I think this is a case of extreme pressure.
I’d also add that in Biden’s case, stepping aside would most likely mean Kamala Harris taking the reins, which might reduce his party’s chance of winning.
I think it's a little bit of column A, a little bit of column B. Politicians usually do want more power. But they often also have big egos and think they're the best person for the job, even if it should be obvious that they're not. If Biden were to secretly go on a prediction market, with the goal of just making money not influencing any opinions, I expect he would bet his odds of victory up. I think he delusionally overestimates himself, and probably most politicians also overestimate themselves, and probably most people in general overestimate themselves.
I have a vague recollection of Bryan writing "I will never retire". If anyone wants to write a zinger of a comment here they should probably should cross reference that piece with this one.
It turns out he was 20 days late and a lot more than a dollar short. Still, at least he saw reason and overcame his power hunger eventually. That's more than you can say for his opponent, who is still in the running even though, if elected, he will turn the same age that Biden is now during his third year in office.
I wonder if Bryan just can’t viscerally relate to the desire to be remembered - and remembered fondly - by posterity as a motivation? To me that seems more important than mere hunger for power in motivating people to enter politics. The fact that it took a century and a half for someone to finally run for a third term seems to support my thesis over his.
Dianne Feinstein also should have retired rather than hang on to the bitter end. Same with Strom Thurman.
We don't have enough Gary Larson's or Bill Watterson's, people who leave on a high note rather than jumping the shark.
Feinstein was the first person who came to mind while reading.
I think that you oversimplified the situation to fit your thesis. I believe that you should have included "status" in your typology. I do not believe that RBG was motivated by "power" - she liked being on the Supreme Court.
I am not sure the status would drop a lot. She might have been going to a lot of parties only because was a Sup. Justice, but that seems a little unlikely a status issue. It seems more likely that the status was a function of power: everyone treats them as high status because they have power, and only because they have power.
I'm reading "liked" here as "fun/hobby/life_meaning". Plenty of people never retired and it's not over power, etc but purely it's who they are or they like their job. I see that a lot with vocational people rather than occupational people, i.e. it's not "work" but an "enjoyable hobby that pays" hence why would they ever "retire".
RGB, the cunt she was, may have simply enjoyed the job though I make no claim as to the truth of the OP.
That said I'm inclined to think that doesn't apply to politicians as they don't "do" anything that doesn't involve power, i.e. I'm not sold on the "vocational" thing if you can't do your hobby alone as, if you need validation, then it's status thing as opposed to a enjoy doing thing.
That's a good point: if your job involves exercising power, and you really like that part of the job, you are liking the power. In theory RGB could have done all the other aspects of the job by working writing a blog on law opinions. The only difference would have been that her opinions wouldn't have shaped US law. It would seem that the exercise of power over people is the desirable part for them, just like the exercise of power over wood is the desirable part for a carpenter.
I'm inclined to agree with this thesis, but I think Ginsburg is weird example to cite as someone driven by power-hunger. The Rehnquist and early Roberts court was by all accounts simply a fun place to work. The people genuinely liked each other (Scalia and Ginsburg were famously very close friends despite their philosophical differences) and SCOTUS is a 8 months a year dream job for the legal nerd personality type. Obviously she didn't make her ideological goals top priority, but to call that power-hunger is facile.
“Almost all businesspeople deeply desire to make money, and almost all politicians deeply desire to wield power.”
And almost all intellectuals deeply desire to achieve intellectual status.
Occasionally one does.
> the rarity of relinquishment
How rare is it?
"44.5% of all justices have died in office and 47.3% have retired from office"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3000028/
Retirements outnumber deaths for that lifetime office.
I'm not sure there are many other occupation with such a high proportion exiting due to death by old age. Relative to other occupations, that seems an extremely low relinquishment rate.
True, but it's probably for some other self-interested motive, right?
Another aspect of political power, which I learned first hand. I once ran for office as a Libertarian, no chance whatsoever of getting more than 3% of the vote, let alone winning.
I was geeked who didn’t date much, but I immediately had four women all wanting to go out with me. Two of them were Democrats who didn’t even agree with my politics, but they still were chasing after me.
Apparently, women are attracted to men who have power. Explains some of the appeal of political office, and, say, Bill Clinton.
Where did you run for office?
Silicon Valley area. I ran for CA State Senate.
I was thinking about this as I read an article in Epoch Times about Justin Trudeau. Now, JT is not a dictator, to be fair. He was democratically elected. (Well, except his party did not actually win the most votes, but the most "seats" in both 2019 and 2021). But he no longer represents the will of the people. If an election were held today, he would lose. By a landslide. The majority of Canadians want him out. And yet he's still in. Cause he doesn't have to have an election now.
I guess you could say he still has constitutional legitimacy, but no longer has democratic legitimacy. Like a dictator, he refuses to quit, even though he is well aware that the people don't want him in charge. The media keep asking hwhy he doesn't quit. His response: "We've got more work to do."
I think they've done enough. I have radically different values than JT and his "Liberal" party. Their decisions and policies often fail to achieve their goals. But even if they did, I don't like his goals!
But this is isn't about me. My point is, despite my personal differences, with JT, I think he has good intentions. I think he truly thinks he is making Canada better. And that, given a bit more time, his continued policies and decisions will continue to make Canada better and make things better for Canadians. And I think he thinks that, given more time, policies and decisions that he made years ago will finally pay off. For example, all the wonderful "investments" that he has made over the years, will finally grow the economy and the budget will finally "balance itself". If he leaves now, the next leader won't "stay the course" and will ruin things. They'll trample his flowers just as they're about to sprout!
In a nutshell, he is clinging to power cause he wants to continue making Canada better (from his perspective).
You might say: "See! Greed for power!!!! That's hwhat I meant!" But I don't think that's hwhat you meant. They way you are describing it, as I understand it, politicos cling to power cause they get their (almost sexual) jollies from seeing people conform to their power. Like the inner party in 1984: "Imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever".
I think that's ridiculous. I think most world leaders, past or present, democratic or not, have/had selfless intentions. Just things didn't always pan out the way they hoped. They were always just one Great Purge away from Utopia.
I was thinking of this a bit more. Maybe it's not necessarily selflessness that motivates politicians, per se.
But I'm not sure hwhat word I can use to describe it. Something like will-to-power. The drive to see your ideas manifested.
Can you understand the motivations of an inventor who invents a cool new invention that he believes will change the world. But he doesn't have the capital to develop it. So he patents it, for now. He tries to sell his patent rights, but others' don't see the same value in it that he does. So, he sells the patent rights for $1 to a company who promises to mass produce and market his invention. He looks forward to seeing his invention in every home. And he will be proud to have made his mark on the world. It's not about the money. It's not even about a selfless desire to make the world better through his invention. It's about a desire to make his mark on the world. A desire for the pride of being proven right that his ideas were as awesome as he thought they were. Can you understand his motivations?
Can you understand the motivations of Howard Roark in the Fountainhead who just wants to see the building he designs get built? Can you understand his motivations when he designed the affordable housing complex? He wasn't in it for the selfless desire to help the poor. He wasn't in it for the money or even the fame. He let Peter take the credit. He was in it just to see his ideas manifested. To see that he could solve many of the world's problems just by building cheaper housing. To see that, thanks to his idea, there is less homelessness. To prove to himself and the world that he is right.
Even you, yourself, sir, you have many ideas that could make the world better. But you sit on the sidelines watching the powers that be make mistakes and just shake your head and say "told you so". Isn't it kinda like being a backseat driver? Don't you ever wish you could drive? Don't you ever wish you could create your own Caplatopia with no zoning regs and open borders? And see how it quickly becomes the best countries in the world. And then, you can TRULY say: "TOLD YOU SO!"
I think _that_, my friend, is the motivation of politicians. Not getting jollies out of oppressing people.
There is some speculation that some politicos are in it for the money! Just look at how highly paid Singapore's PM is!
Likewise, Canada has pensions for Members of Parliament (MPs). But you need to serve 6 years in order to qualify.
Jagmeet Singh, the leader of the New Democratic Party (NDP) made a deal to keep PM Justin Trudeau in power until 2025. Coincidentally, Singh was first elected in 2019. Thus, he will have served for six years by 2025. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XF2ayWcJfxo
Likewise, Mike Duffy was appointed as a Senator. He was previously a national news anchor, so you think he'd have enough money, right? But hwhen he was a Senator, he took advantage of the rules to get re-imbursed for two houses, by pretending he wasn't from Ottawa, even though he totally was residing in Ottawa before he was appointed as Senator. Or something like that. This was a huge scandal. And there was a subsequent trial. But he was acquitted of any wrong-doing.
Likewise, I think that Dear Leader Kim Jong Un is a kleptocrat. This is actually good news! The Republic of Korea can surely afford to bribe him more than he can ever make as the Supreme Leader of the DPRK. Perhaps they can buy him off, pay him a glorious pension for life, whilst allowing the North Korean people to not starve to death and watch all the K-Dramas they want!
That being said, I don't think greed for money is the primary motivating factor behind all or even most politicos. Trump, for instance. I sincerely doubt he's in it for the money. If anything, being president prolly comes with a huge opportunity cost for him!
I am still not convinced, sir.
I think if politicians were really in it for the love of power, I think they would be far, far worse. Like they might bring back "droit du seigneur".
But, maybe by "power", you mean simply staying in their decision-making position as long as possible? Not necessarily maxxing out on hwhatever they can get away with hwhilst they're in their position. OK, but look at the track records of US Presidents. Most quit after 2 terms, even though that wasn't constitutionally required.
Even sleepy Joe Biden is starting to come around. I don't think he's refusing to retire because he just wants to hold on to power. I think he sincerely thinks Kamala (or anyone else for that matter) can't win. I think he's right. According to polls, Kamala Harris is likely to lose to Trump. So would any other potential Dem candidate, including Biden. But Kamala is slightly less likely to lose than him. But maybe that's because America barely knows her. Perhaps, he, rightly, believes that as America gets to know Kamala Harris more, they'll, rightly, start to miss Biden!
Even given the now constitutional 2-term limit, if politcos really want to cling to power, wouldn't they run for congress or Senate and then for Speaker of the House and/or House/Senate Majority leader? After all, they're experience as President would teach them that such positions hold a lot of power, as previous holders of the position were probably a thorn in their side, keeping them from implementing their agenda, as much as possible. OK, it may not be as powerful as being President, but still more powerful than writing a few books, giving a few speeches, atbp. Diba?
I think most politicians are in it cause they really believe in their agenda. They really believe they can craft the perfect society. Or, at least, a much better one. But, once they get into power, they realize: it's harder than it looks! The Speaker of the House gets in their way! The Senate Majority Leader gets in their way. The Supreme court gets in their way. Their cabinet gets in their way. Government employees get in their way. The States get in their way. The People get in their way! They say that Stalin was just one Great Purge away from Utopia! https://www.theonion.com/report-suggests-stalin-was-just-one-great-purge-away-fr-1825691925
Have you ever played Poltical Simulation games? There's this one I got from Steam called: Democracy 3. You can choose various laws, taxes and policies. I think the goal can really be whatever you want: economic growth, certain stats or whatever. But you're limited by a few things, namely: political capital and elections.
Political capital, in the game, is in the form of points. Change must be slow. Each change costs points. You only have so many points per quarter to change things.
I think, in real life, it is similar to "buy-in". Even if you have the power to change things, you need to get "buy-in". You see this in companies. Management insists employees switch to a new software system. Some middle managers don't like the new system, so they keep using the old system, resist switching to the new system, don't insist on their employees using the new system, atbp.
Likewise, in politics, look at Justin Trudeau. From 2015 to 2019, he had a majority government. hWhen the leader of a party gets a majority government, Canada basically functions as a one-party state for the next 4 to 5 years. The PM could appoint members of his cabinet, Senate or Supreme Court without confirmation from the Senate or House of Commons. Most senators were either appointed by him or appointed by his Liberal party, anyway. A majority of the Members of Parliament (MPs) House of Commons was Liberal. If any Liberal MP DARED oppose his agenda and not vote the way he wanted, he could kick them out of the Liberal Caucus and bar them from ever running as a Liberal again! Even speaking time is allocated by party and the party leader gets to choose which of his members get to speak. So, for the most part, Liberal MPs were basically a bunch of overpaid puppets / yes men. And yet ... Some STILL opposed his agenda. Most famously, his Attorney General, Jody Wilson-Raybould. Even in one-party states, you still need to get your party on board.
Even in a dictatorship, without a parliament or congress, you still need to get your staff on-board, from your cabinet down to government bureaucrats. They might pretend to be loyal but secretly work against you, if they are not 100% on-board with your agenda.
You also need to get the people on board. Just look at all the people who openly flaunted stupid covid rules! The pandemic taught me just how little power the government actually has! Oh sure, you can threaten to arrest the people, if they don't comply. In Ontario, the Premier put in a stay-at-home order which authorized and directed the police to stop and question the reasons of anybody found outside their home. The cops just said: "yea, we're not gonna do that".
The point is: change is difficult. It is difficult to find even ONE person who agrees with you on everything. Let alone hundreds of MPs, thousands of cops, soldiers and government employees and millions of people. Even when they DO agree, some fail to implement your agenda due to sheer laziness or incompetence.
So, I think a lot of heads of governments end up realizing that running a country is harder than it looks!
So, in Democracy 3, there's a setting to disable "political capital". I pick that setting.
But then, I implement all the policies I want: I drastically cut taxes, ban abortion, legalize immigration, drastically cut services, eliminate public pensions, replace government health-care spending with tax deductions for medical costs, atbp.
But then I see my government sinking deep into debt! hWhy?! Haven't the makers of this game ever heard of the Laffer curve? Or trickle down economics? Or maybe my policies will work in the looooong run. Yea, that's it! I just need more time! I'll show them! But hwhat's this? There's an election? hWhat? I lost by a landslide?? The people of this country are too stupid! They don't deserve to vote! Is there a way I can disable elections in this game???
So, I sorta understand politicians. Even Justin Trudeau. Although I can't stand him, I don't think he's hungry for power for the sake of power. I think he honestly believed that his deficit spending on things like the "Strategic Innovation Fund" would grow the economy and, thus, increase government revenue. And the budget really would "balance itself". Well, it's been almost 9 years and it hasn't. And Canadians are finally starting to realize that. But, I can see, from his perspective, he's thinking: "Maybe just give it a few more years. They'll see!" I really think he sincerely believes that his policies will work and they will make Canada great again, given enough time. He's wrong. But I do think he has "good" intentions (by his own sick, twisted definition of "good"). I don't think he's staying on just out of power lust.
Likewise, I think most politicians, however they come to power, want to get or keep power to implement their vision, which they truly believe will be good for the country. I think most politicians are not hungry for power for the sake of power.
That being said, do I think there are some politicians that are just power hungry? Yea. Putin, for example. hWhen constitutional limits prevented him from serving more than two consecutive terms as President, he spend a term as Prime Minister and then ran for President again. There are some politicians like this. But I think they are rare.
I disagree; my observation is that most people have a cynical enough view of politicians to believe they are more motivated by power than a desire to make the world a better place. Many people would even concede that about politicians they are ideologically sympathetic towards, but they view it as a lesser of two evils. Whether someone views business people as power-hungry depends entirely on whether they are pro or anti-market. I think it depends entirely on a case-by-case basis whether influential figures in business are driven more by power, fame, money, or some combination of all three.
I disagree that this is evidence of power-hunger being the primary motive. Accepting that you’re senile and it would be best for everyone if you give up and just go wait for death is an extremely psychologically taxing thing to ask of someone. Saying this proves their motives are impure is akin to arguing that someone who purports to be altruistic is actually a self interested sociopath because they balk at sacrificing their life for a younger stranger or being unable to accept that their own child is guilty of a serious crime that would condemn to life in prison. Someone’s morals breaking down under extreme pressure isn’t proof that they lack any morals, and I think this is a case of extreme pressure.
I’d also add that in Biden’s case, stepping aside would most likely mean Kamala Harris taking the reins, which might reduce his party’s chance of winning.
I think it's a little bit of column A, a little bit of column B. Politicians usually do want more power. But they often also have big egos and think they're the best person for the job, even if it should be obvious that they're not. If Biden were to secretly go on a prediction market, with the goal of just making money not influencing any opinions, I expect he would bet his odds of victory up. I think he delusionally overestimates himself, and probably most politicians also overestimate themselves, and probably most people in general overestimate themselves.
The sainted Ron Paul quit while he was ... behind.
Then, again, he DID have this son ...
I have a vague recollection of Bryan writing "I will never retire". If anyone wants to write a zinger of a comment here they should probably should cross reference that piece with this one.
It turns out he was 20 days late and a lot more than a dollar short. Still, at least he saw reason and overcame his power hunger eventually. That's more than you can say for his opponent, who is still in the running even though, if elected, he will turn the same age that Biden is now during his third year in office.
Well this aged well.
I wonder if Bryan just can’t viscerally relate to the desire to be remembered - and remembered fondly - by posterity as a motivation? To me that seems more important than mere hunger for power in motivating people to enter politics. The fact that it took a century and a half for someone to finally run for a third term seems to support my thesis over his.