It’s a little counter-intuitive, but she probably feels like she’s more helpful in her current role than she would be in politics. A politician has to be a jack-of-all-trades, learning about a lot of different fields, dealing with education, military, civil law, budget, etc etc etc. Where an activist can specialize exclusively in one thing, gaining a lot of clout and helping provide leadership.
Global climate activism has long needed a leader, its own Mahatma Gandhi. Now its getting one, and it leaves her very, very influential. She can’t be thrown out of office either, she could only be assassinated, which would turn her into a martyr like Navalny. So, she’s steadily growing powerful and is virtually unstoppable right now.
She probably wants to keep it that way. Getting elected would derail that a little bit, and having these kinds of non-governmental civil leaders is actually very important.
I think a greater problem is that some of them actually are. In this case, they’ll know more than the average citizen about a given issue, with a certain understanding of the nuance and complexity that the citizen, with mainly just access to major media, lacks. This makes their decisions look strange to us, in the same way someone might wonder “why did the engineer design this this way? makes no sense to me.”
Additionally, since they’re also knowledgeable about a lot of other considerations, they’ll have to balance them against each other, where even a highly-knowledgeable specialist might not fully understand the reasons something cannot be done yet.
Lastly, they have to win re-election, so they have to balance all of that against normal people’s perceptions and ignorant opinions. All this balancing is going to naturally make them seem very out-of-touch with an average citizen.
And that’s just any good ones. You also have plenty of crazy ideologues running around these days, that actually want to undermine democracy and seize greater power, or want some unchecked laissez-faire system or whatever. People whose faith has blinded them to reason and rationality.
All that said, politics has always been messy and ugly, that’s inherent. The only alternatives open the door for unchecked corruption to run things, like Russia deals with. As Churchill said, democracy is terrible. It’s just that everything else is a lot worse.
You see, you’re engaging in the assumed competency right now.
They DO NOT magically know more about an industry than the professionals in those industries. Ever. Period. Their decisions don’t make sense because they’re corrupted morons, not competent legislators. They do not know the intricacies of the bills they pass nor their impact most of the time.
While politicians can use skill as you describe, they don’t have to and in fact often abuse that assumed competency to hide the corruption.
“Trust me bro, this tax cut will totally trickle down! I talk to economists every day!” Assuming they are competent only hurts YOU, because it primes you to buy in to the gaslighting.
Note, I said “some”. If you think they are all terrible, you’ve likely been propagandized. I also said they’re jacks-of-all-trades, I never said they know more than a specialist about that specialist’s field. This is why they need to consult specialists. What they do know is things outside of that specialist’s field. Say, they know more about governmental budgeting than a doctor would. They know more about medicine than an economist would.
And again, some. They’re not all the same, that’s a gross and inaccurate oversimplification based on emotion.
I’m trying to point out how you are still glamourizing the job, which is the first step to buying in on their excuses. After all, you won’t ever have the “insider knowledge” they do.
You know who else has “insider knowledge”? Crypto bros, bankers, and lawyers. What do they use it for? Getting money from people.
In many cases, it’s justified such as a skilled lawyer knowing which angle will get you off the hook, but in many other cases it is not. Outwardly without that true insider knowledge, YOU have zero ability to discern who is honest and who is gaslighting.
If a metric cannot discriminate between an honest person and a gaslighter, it’s not a good metric. Politicians having “insider knowledge” is, in fact, a red herring at best. If their idea IS good, it will have FAR better justification than, “trust me bro, the lobbyists say it’ll be great.”.
What I’m saying is, the LAST thing you should do is trust a politician’s “insider knowledge”. If you want to learn how to survive prison, you don’t go asking the Warden for advice.
I don’t think its glamorizing to point out some of the nuances in the job itself. And they’re not all in some grand conspiracy or something. You can understand why a good one believes as they do, if you put in the work. You just need to learn enough about the issue to become somewhat fluent in it. Say, covid vaccines or something.
Real information, though, not just emotionally-digestible good-sounding information. It takes actual hard work, like classroom-style.
Eh, glamourizing isn’t quite the right word for sure, but the point is that you cannot use “insider reasoning” to justify anything. At all. Ever.
I do software engineering. I have to explain to non-tech savvy people extremely technical things weekly. They do not need that “insider knowledge” I have to determine if the idea is sound.
That’s what I’m pointing out: “insider knowledge” is nothing but gaslighting, because a real pro can explain things to a non-pro in an understandable way.
If trusting “insider knowledge” only increases your chances of being gaslit … why trust ANYONE who uses the excuse to not actually clarify things? My point is your mindset is still leaving you vulnerable by giving ANY creedence to “insider knowledge”. If they know what they’re talking about, they WILL be able to explain it in simple terms.
Einstein dumbed down relativity for middleschoolers. Why should politicians be allowed to fail to explain much, much simpler things?
The problem with politics is that it tends to chew up and spit out people with a modicum of honesty, integrity and a moral compass. They either give up, or become corrupted to the point that they can no longer fulfill the purpose that they went into politics for.
This is generally true, but there are also many notable exceptions.
Here in Germany I could name:
Gregor Gysi
Of the left Party
Always does what he thinks is best for the people
Many political opponents tried really hard to stick dirt on him and failed
Nico Semsrott
Arguably not that long in politics
Took a stance against Martin Sonnenborn (who is the very popular leader of a satirical party) in an affair and is now without a party (Yes this makes it likely he will not be in the next parliament)
As far as I have seen votes always in favor of the people
Patrick Breyer
-Pirate Party
fights for digital freedom and privacy since decades
Always follows the pirate paradigm: transparency. He publishes all his meeting with lobbyists.
Helps to educate the public and discovered quite a few hidden legislative attempts to undermine privacy
I have great respect for Gysi, and always did since I first listened to a campaign speech from him in the mid-90s. He’s a politician who has stuck to his principles and prevailed through adversities where many other people would have just given up. But, even if you disregard his flaws, blind spots around Russia, and the poor handling of the internal crises which have now led to a split of his party, he has hardly ever been in a position where he could truly make a change in politics. His party may have been part of the government in some German states, but he himself never has been. And this may sound cynical, but it’s relatively easy to be a principled politician when there’s not much at stake. It’s when you actually have some power and influence, that the wheat separates from the chaff - when you actually have to handle all kinds of pressure from all sides and see what your principles are worth to you.
This is not a defense of any other politicians - I wish there were way more who didn’t give up their principles at the first sign of pressure. I’m just saying that Gysi has rarely been in a position where he had to do that.
I am unfamiliar with the other two, but I would say similar concerns may apply there.
Gysi disappointed me massively when he defended Russia in the Nawalny poisoning and speculated about who might ‘actually profit’ without the slightest shred of evidence.
In honesty I didn’t hear all his statements back then. Now from a quick search I can only find his Twitter:
„Natürlich kann es so gewesen sein, wie es @derspiegel annimmt. Es kann aber auch anders gewesen sein. Ich habe als Rechtsanwalt häufig erlebt, dass alles gegen A sprach, es war dann aber doch B.“
Which just says there should be more investigation before accusations are made. Asking for evidence.
If you have a link to an interview or talk where he does as you said I would be interested to hear how he phrased it.
I want to point out one thing I have seen far to often in recent times: If a person or group of the left make a wrong statement others which previously followed them are quick to change their view and declare them as persona non grata. On the other hand we have the far right which spills out lies after lies and their followers are so used to it that even disproving them in multiple points does not touch their loyality in any way. I think we should focus more on welcoming people who try to do good thing. If they make a wrong step we should not shun them but try to show them why they did wrong. At least hey try to better themselves and you/we have a good chance to convince them of the better way.
See for example Snowden. He made the mistake to believe Russia would never invade Ukraine. An easy mistake if you have to live inside Russia propaganda machine. Upon realizing his error he was so struck by it, because he uses his social media reach to better the world and now trough a mistake he abused it for spreading propaganda, that he apologized and stopped tweeting for many months.
im MDR erklärte der ehemalige Fraktionschef und inzwischen außenpolitische Sprecher der Bundestagsfraktion, Gregor Gysi, zum Giftanschlag auf Nawalny:
“Es kann ja auch sein, dass es ein Gegner der Erdgasleitung nach Deutschland war. Oder ein beauftragter Gegner, der wusste: Wenn man einen solchen Mord inszeniert, der dann der Regierung in die Schuhe geschoben wird, führt das zur Verschlechterung der Beziehungen.”
Auf einer Wahlkampf-Veranstaltung seiner Partei am gestrigen Donnerstag in Bochum sagte Gysi wörtlich:
„Der Putin muss doch bescheuert sein, wenn er sowas macht. Er weiß doch, dass das die Beziehungen zum Westen noch mehr verschlechtert.“
I understand being cautious and not pre-judging before all the facts are known but what Gysi said back then went beyond that to actively dismissing the idea that it might have been Russia after all.
Gysi would have a valid point, if you assumed that Putin is a rationally thinking leader who is interested in a good relationship with the West. But that is not the case. Putin is clearly out to provoke and challenge the West and NATO, though to what end, I can only speculate. I also don’t think Putin is in any way rational.
The problem with the modern Left especially in Germany is that they have a huge blind spot when it comes to Russia (and, really, anyone else who they consider to have been part of the historical struggle against imperialism, colonialism and fascism, no matter if they have since turned into tyrants or dictators). It is a huge problem, but they can’t seem to liberate themselves from that.
How likely is she to be elected there in the next decade ? Would be quite ironic to have the officer who removed the today to welcome her in a decade
It’s a little counter-intuitive, but she probably feels like she’s more helpful in her current role than she would be in politics. A politician has to be a jack-of-all-trades, learning about a lot of different fields, dealing with education, military, civil law, budget, etc etc etc. Where an activist can specialize exclusively in one thing, gaining a lot of clout and helping provide leadership.
Global climate activism has long needed a leader, its own Mahatma Gandhi. Now its getting one, and it leaves her very, very influential. She can’t be thrown out of office either, she could only be assassinated, which would turn her into a martyr like Navalny. So, she’s steadily growing powerful and is virtually unstoppable right now.
She probably wants to keep it that way. Getting elected would derail that a little bit, and having these kinds of non-governmental civil leaders is actually very important.
Yea, everyone thinks politicians need those skills, but do the current bout of politicians even have those skills, either?!
There seems to be an assumed competency that doesn’t match reality.
I think a greater problem is that some of them actually are. In this case, they’ll know more than the average citizen about a given issue, with a certain understanding of the nuance and complexity that the citizen, with mainly just access to major media, lacks. This makes their decisions look strange to us, in the same way someone might wonder “why did the engineer design this this way? makes no sense to me.”
Additionally, since they’re also knowledgeable about a lot of other considerations, they’ll have to balance them against each other, where even a highly-knowledgeable specialist might not fully understand the reasons something cannot be done yet.
Lastly, they have to win re-election, so they have to balance all of that against normal people’s perceptions and ignorant opinions. All this balancing is going to naturally make them seem very out-of-touch with an average citizen.
And that’s just any good ones. You also have plenty of crazy ideologues running around these days, that actually want to undermine democracy and seize greater power, or want some unchecked laissez-faire system or whatever. People whose faith has blinded them to reason and rationality.
All that said, politics has always been messy and ugly, that’s inherent. The only alternatives open the door for unchecked corruption to run things, like Russia deals with. As Churchill said, democracy is terrible. It’s just that everything else is a lot worse.
You see, you’re engaging in the assumed competency right now.
They DO NOT magically know more about an industry than the professionals in those industries. Ever. Period. Their decisions don’t make sense because they’re corrupted morons, not competent legislators. They do not know the intricacies of the bills they pass nor their impact most of the time.
While politicians can use skill as you describe, they don’t have to and in fact often abuse that assumed competency to hide the corruption.
“Trust me bro, this tax cut will totally trickle down! I talk to economists every day!” Assuming they are competent only hurts YOU, because it primes you to buy in to the gaslighting.
Note, I said “some”. If you think they are all terrible, you’ve likely been propagandized. I also said they’re jacks-of-all-trades, I never said they know more than a specialist about that specialist’s field. This is why they need to consult specialists. What they do know is things outside of that specialist’s field. Say, they know more about governmental budgeting than a doctor would. They know more about medicine than an economist would.
And again, some. They’re not all the same, that’s a gross and inaccurate oversimplification based on emotion.
I’m trying to point out how you are still glamourizing the job, which is the first step to buying in on their excuses. After all, you won’t ever have the “insider knowledge” they do.
You know who else has “insider knowledge”? Crypto bros, bankers, and lawyers. What do they use it for? Getting money from people.
In many cases, it’s justified such as a skilled lawyer knowing which angle will get you off the hook, but in many other cases it is not. Outwardly without that true insider knowledge, YOU have zero ability to discern who is honest and who is gaslighting.
If a metric cannot discriminate between an honest person and a gaslighter, it’s not a good metric. Politicians having “insider knowledge” is, in fact, a red herring at best. If their idea IS good, it will have FAR better justification than, “trust me bro, the lobbyists say it’ll be great.”.
What I’m saying is, the LAST thing you should do is trust a politician’s “insider knowledge”. If you want to learn how to survive prison, you don’t go asking the Warden for advice.
I don’t think its glamorizing to point out some of the nuances in the job itself. And they’re not all in some grand conspiracy or something. You can understand why a good one believes as they do, if you put in the work. You just need to learn enough about the issue to become somewhat fluent in it. Say, covid vaccines or something.
Real information, though, not just emotionally-digestible good-sounding information. It takes actual hard work, like classroom-style.
Eh, glamourizing isn’t quite the right word for sure, but the point is that you cannot use “insider reasoning” to justify anything. At all. Ever.
I do software engineering. I have to explain to non-tech savvy people extremely technical things weekly. They do not need that “insider knowledge” I have to determine if the idea is sound.
That’s what I’m pointing out: “insider knowledge” is nothing but gaslighting, because a real pro can explain things to a non-pro in an understandable way.
If trusting “insider knowledge” only increases your chances of being gaslit … why trust ANYONE who uses the excuse to not actually clarify things? My point is your mindset is still leaving you vulnerable by giving ANY creedence to “insider knowledge”. If they know what they’re talking about, they WILL be able to explain it in simple terms.
Einstein dumbed down relativity for middleschoolers. Why should politicians be allowed to fail to explain much, much simpler things?
That’s almost what Jon Stewart said about him running for office. He feels he does more useful work outside of politics.
The problem with politics is that it tends to chew up and spit out people with a modicum of honesty, integrity and a moral compass. They either give up, or become corrupted to the point that they can no longer fulfill the purpose that they went into politics for.
This is generally true, but there are also many notable exceptions. Here in Germany I could name:
I have great respect for Gysi, and always did since I first listened to a campaign speech from him in the mid-90s. He’s a politician who has stuck to his principles and prevailed through adversities where many other people would have just given up. But, even if you disregard his flaws, blind spots around Russia, and the poor handling of the internal crises which have now led to a split of his party, he has hardly ever been in a position where he could truly make a change in politics. His party may have been part of the government in some German states, but he himself never has been. And this may sound cynical, but it’s relatively easy to be a principled politician when there’s not much at stake. It’s when you actually have some power and influence, that the wheat separates from the chaff - when you actually have to handle all kinds of pressure from all sides and see what your principles are worth to you.
This is not a defense of any other politicians - I wish there were way more who didn’t give up their principles at the first sign of pressure. I’m just saying that Gysi has rarely been in a position where he had to do that.
I am unfamiliar with the other two, but I would say similar concerns may apply there.
Gysi disappointed me massively when he defended Russia in the Nawalny poisoning and speculated about who might ‘actually profit’ without the slightest shred of evidence.
In honesty I didn’t hear all his statements back then. Now from a quick search I can only find his Twitter:
Which just says there should be more investigation before accusations are made. Asking for evidence. If you have a link to an interview or talk where he does as you said I would be interested to hear how he phrased it.
I want to point out one thing I have seen far to often in recent times: If a person or group of the left make a wrong statement others which previously followed them are quick to change their view and declare them as persona non grata. On the other hand we have the far right which spills out lies after lies and their followers are so used to it that even disproving them in multiple points does not touch their loyality in any way. I think we should focus more on welcoming people who try to do good thing. If they make a wrong step we should not shun them but try to show them why they did wrong. At least hey try to better themselves and you/we have a good chance to convince them of the better way.
See for example Snowden. He made the mistake to believe Russia would never invade Ukraine. An easy mistake if you have to live inside Russia propaganda machine. Upon realizing his error he was so struck by it, because he uses his social media reach to better the world and now trough a mistake he abused it for spreading propaganda, that he apologized and stopped tweeting for many months.
https://politik.watson.de/deutschland/meinung/135709990-warum-der-fall-nawalny-zeigt-dass-die-linke-nicht-regierungsfaehig-ist
https://www.ruhrbarone.de/gregor-gysi-verdaechtigt-nord-stream2-gegner-des-nawalny-giftanschlags/189721/
I understand being cautious and not pre-judging before all the facts are known but what Gysi said back then went beyond that to actively dismissing the idea that it might have been Russia after all.
Gysi would have a valid point, if you assumed that Putin is a rationally thinking leader who is interested in a good relationship with the West. But that is not the case. Putin is clearly out to provoke and challenge the West and NATO, though to what end, I can only speculate. I also don’t think Putin is in any way rational.
The problem with the modern Left especially in Germany is that they have a huge blind spot when it comes to Russia (and, really, anyone else who they consider to have been part of the historical struggle against imperialism, colonialism and fascism, no matter if they have since turned into tyrants or dictators). It is a huge problem, but they can’t seem to liberate themselves from that.