News How does the power of public office affect politicians?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zero
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers around the definitions and implications of "conservative" and "liberal" in political contexts, particularly in the U.S. Participants express that these terms often serve as pejoratives and reflect extreme positions that can obscure underlying agendas. The conversation highlights the fluidity of these definitions over time, suggesting that what was once considered liberal can become conservative and vice versa. There is a debate about the true nature of conservatism, with some arguing it should focus on resource preservation and sound fiscal policy, while others criticize modern conservatives for being wasteful and hypocritical. The dialogue also touches on the nature of political power, suggesting that both liberal and conservative politicians may prioritize power acquisition and retention over genuine ideological commitments. Ultimately, the discussion reveals a complex interplay between political philosophy and practical governance, emphasizing the need for a balance between liberal and conservative approaches.
  • #31
Originally posted by Zero
Actually, I think you bring up a good point. Conservatism can be a great thing...but it never progresses./
"Never?" The second law is NOT the child of the first law?
Liberalism produces great new ideas,/
Andy Warhol's soup can? vs. Rembrandt? Can you give us a f'rinstance or two?
but can slip into undisciplined nonsense. Wouldn't that show that we need a bit of both, instead of one side trying to eradicate the other?

This is where we move from the philosophical arena to the political arena --- again, the first object of any political activity is the acquisition/expansion of power, and the second is the retention of that power --- there is no such thing as a "liberal politician" --- he/she/it is entirely too busy dealing with the first and second objectives of politicking. Same goes for political movements --- power first, retaining power second, and there ain't no third.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Originally posted by Bystander
This is where we move from the philosophical arena to the political arena --- again, the first object of any political activity is the acquisition/expansion of power, and the second is the retention of that power --- there is no such thing as a "liberal politician" --- he/she/it is entirely too busy dealing with the first and second objectives of politicking. Same goes for political movements --- power first, retaining power second, and there ain't no third.
Well, I always thought of that as happening in the "2nd" or "3rd" generation of a movement...the best of intentions to start with, the taste of real power, and then the inevitable corruption. That's probably why I am so much in favor of term limits, and in not allowing people to hold too many different positions of power. Professional politics is a corrupting influence on even the most idealistic person.
 
  • #33
Which assumption do you make? That the power of public office corrupts the office holder, or, that the office holder corrupts the power of the public office?

I maintain the latter --- history presents very few examples of clean politicians --- they are remarkable for the fact that they remained clean while in office, or quit office when pressures to corrupt the power of the office became too great for them to tolerate. There aren't any examples I've run into of cases in which an office was so dirty and corrupting that it turned Mother T. into Ma Barker.
 
  • #34
Originally posted by Bystander
Which assumption do you make? That the power of public office corrupts the office holder, or, that the office holder corrupts the power of the public office?

I maintain the latter --- history presents very few examples of clean politicians --- they are remarkable for the fact that they remained clean while in office, or quit office when pressures to corrupt the power of the office became too great for them to tolerate. There aren't any examples I've run into of cases in which an office was so dirty and corrupting that it turned Mother T. into Ma Barker.
It is probably a combination...a compromise here, a turning your head from the truth there...it all adds up.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
8K
Replies
98
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
838