This is correct, politics is cruelty. However, politics defined here is also organizational decision making, meaning this same concept occurs in board rooms everywhere (many that I have presented in), not just in parliament or Congress.. Most people think that businesses are run "simply by the numbers," which really is not the entire truth. Executives build cultures that align around the mission. In a competitive world, they often demonize the competition, sometimes fiercely. Almost nobody aligns to a mission without emotional attachment. As we know, negativity trumps positivity when getting people to act. Politics is the worst kind, but don't think it does not happen in other organizations, like businesses and universities.
- There does not seem to be an agreement on primary emotions.
- The combination of joy and anger is not automatically cruelty, but can manifest itself differently.
- There are quite a few examples where poltics is NOT cruelty. Focus and determination do not have to be cruel. Lee Kuan Yew described himself as a 'ruthless politcal street-fighter', but his focus was on goals, not on the pain oppenents.
Yes and no. Many studies have disproven the idea of universal emotion. Across cultures the 6 emotions do not hold, especially from western to eastern. (https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1200155109). There is also the human component of negativity bias at play, where we are biologically wired to think for survival (even if we’re no longer being chased by tigers), the new tiger in modern life manifests as anxiety, fear of other, useless worry over things beyond our control. So, focusing on the negative drums up more engaged eyeballs as we all have experienced on social media. Using Elizabeth Warren’s campaign slogan to support this idea of cruelty equating to politics isn’t entirely the full story. As a woman it’s quite hard to compete in a man’s arena… so how do we do it (terribly perhaps)? We compete like a man, erring on the side of violence, showing brute strength, “walking tall and carrying a big stick.” America still has trouble taking women leaders seriously. Does that mean we must stoop to the level of fear and hatred. I suggest, no. But has anyone been so bold to develop a strategy against appealing to our lowest nature as the Trump campaign did and continues to do? Not yet, but I believe it can be done. We do not have to hate each other and the arena of thinking people and voting citizens needs to be brought back by a truly great leader. I think someone along the lines of Pete Buttiegieg could fit the bill, but it may be too soon… since half the country is up in arms against gay people and DEI. The damage done by Trump may outlast my lifetime to see a brighter future but there is more than one way to lead. It is not only from the battlefield. All is lost for humanity if this is true.
I was interested in what you thought of the facial expressions hypothesis. My question had no political content, even thought the 'stack by Bryan Caplan does.
But since you brought it up, I'm interested to know why you thin Pete Buttiegieg is a great leader. As you know, I have not negative bias toward gay people. I will admit that I don't know much about Pete, other than he didn't make it to the top of the Democratic primary.
Everything is political so good luck escaping that old adage. The emotion bit is oversimplified / not universal as I stated. I like Pete b/c he doesn’t speak with ire, the way we all know one particular person does who just won a changing of the guard here in the U.S. Pete has reasonable and fact backed support of his points. He’s smart but kind. And to make him palatable for the military-focused he was part of the U.S. military.
I love this but I’m a cynical person. You’re only highlighting a dimension of politics. I don’t think I can agree that cruelty defines politics. As an economist surely you can agree there are metrics with which we can assess societal positives (income growth ahead of inflation, less drug addiction etc) which obviously will never include everyone. We can also attempt to link these positives to policies. Further I think a more benign definition of good politician is someone who makes compromises and deals that still mainly push forward their goals. Assuming said goals lead to increased positives in society. Though I would think from the individual perspective anything that moves your party line forward is positive even if not measurably for society. Obviously people have supported horrible ideas and envy is a very easy emotion to pander to as is conspiratorial ill defined resentment(and naturally there are meaningful fair grievances) but society requires governance of some kind. Even anarchists aren’t just going to let everything roll and you have to have ways to measure governments effect on societal health and success. I don’t think limited government is in our future because of our extreme debt and inability to curb spending.
This is correct, politics is cruelty. However, politics defined here is also organizational decision making, meaning this same concept occurs in board rooms everywhere (many that I have presented in), not just in parliament or Congress.. Most people think that businesses are run "simply by the numbers," which really is not the entire truth. Executives build cultures that align around the mission. In a competitive world, they often demonize the competition, sometimes fiercely. Almost nobody aligns to a mission without emotional attachment. As we know, negativity trumps positivity when getting people to act. Politics is the worst kind, but don't think it does not happen in other organizations, like businesses and universities.
And government is the substitution of force for intelligence. Sometimes that’s wise, but seldom.
How do you get from “Fight Hard” to “Elizabeth Warren is a cruel mistress”?
I am not convinced, to put it mildly:
- There does not seem to be an agreement on primary emotions.
- The combination of joy and anger is not automatically cruelty, but can manifest itself differently.
- There are quite a few examples where poltics is NOT cruelty. Focus and determination do not have to be cruel. Lee Kuan Yew described himself as a 'ruthless politcal street-fighter', but his focus was on goals, not on the pain oppenents.
Mistrust all, in whom the urge to punish is strong.
-Nietzsche
Through Scott McCloud to anarchism!
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/essays/william-tecumseh-sherman-and-total-war
War is cruelty, as Sherman said. I ws sure you were referring to that.
Politics is incentives. Love and Fear, as Machiavelli said, but if you have to choose one, Fear works better.
Yes and no. Many studies have disproven the idea of universal emotion. Across cultures the 6 emotions do not hold, especially from western to eastern. (https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1200155109). There is also the human component of negativity bias at play, where we are biologically wired to think for survival (even if we’re no longer being chased by tigers), the new tiger in modern life manifests as anxiety, fear of other, useless worry over things beyond our control. So, focusing on the negative drums up more engaged eyeballs as we all have experienced on social media. Using Elizabeth Warren’s campaign slogan to support this idea of cruelty equating to politics isn’t entirely the full story. As a woman it’s quite hard to compete in a man’s arena… so how do we do it (terribly perhaps)? We compete like a man, erring on the side of violence, showing brute strength, “walking tall and carrying a big stick.” America still has trouble taking women leaders seriously. Does that mean we must stoop to the level of fear and hatred. I suggest, no. But has anyone been so bold to develop a strategy against appealing to our lowest nature as the Trump campaign did and continues to do? Not yet, but I believe it can be done. We do not have to hate each other and the arena of thinking people and voting citizens needs to be brought back by a truly great leader. I think someone along the lines of Pete Buttiegieg could fit the bill, but it may be too soon… since half the country is up in arms against gay people and DEI. The damage done by Trump may outlast my lifetime to see a brighter future but there is more than one way to lead. It is not only from the battlefield. All is lost for humanity if this is true.
I was interested in what you thought of the facial expressions hypothesis. My question had no political content, even thought the 'stack by Bryan Caplan does.
But since you brought it up, I'm interested to know why you thin Pete Buttiegieg is a great leader. As you know, I have not negative bias toward gay people. I will admit that I don't know much about Pete, other than he didn't make it to the top of the Democratic primary.
Everything is political so good luck escaping that old adage. The emotion bit is oversimplified / not universal as I stated. I like Pete b/c he doesn’t speak with ire, the way we all know one particular person does who just won a changing of the guard here in the U.S. Pete has reasonable and fact backed support of his points. He’s smart but kind. And to make him palatable for the military-focused he was part of the U.S. military.
Fair enough.
I love this but I’m a cynical person. You’re only highlighting a dimension of politics. I don’t think I can agree that cruelty defines politics. As an economist surely you can agree there are metrics with which we can assess societal positives (income growth ahead of inflation, less drug addiction etc) which obviously will never include everyone. We can also attempt to link these positives to policies. Further I think a more benign definition of good politician is someone who makes compromises and deals that still mainly push forward their goals. Assuming said goals lead to increased positives in society. Though I would think from the individual perspective anything that moves your party line forward is positive even if not measurably for society. Obviously people have supported horrible ideas and envy is a very easy emotion to pander to as is conspiratorial ill defined resentment(and naturally there are meaningful fair grievances) but society requires governance of some kind. Even anarchists aren’t just going to let everything roll and you have to have ways to measure governments effect on societal health and success. I don’t think limited government is in our future because of our extreme debt and inability to curb spending.
Good piece. But . . . word processor stuck on the space bar?