this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2024
10 points (100.0% liked)

Political Memes

5512 readers
536 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Sure.

The important starting point is:

Your perspective is not the only perspective. Every other person has a complex life, just as complex as yours with its own perspectives

And no one perspective is objectively right or wrong. There is only the opinions we bring to the table, what we each choose to do, how that impacts the world, and who we successfully bring to our cause

And most importantly, the policies I believe are morally and ethically the best path forward are often not widely popular without intense, direct conversation on the nuance of a subject, or until after the policy yields long term success that won't become apparent until after the next one or more rounds of elections

With that said, acquiring votes often involves identifying what resonates with others and pursuing their support rather than enacting the ideal policies you want to pursue

Actual governing means negotiating to enforce a collective will, agreed upon through genuine discourse and collaboration motivated by improving society and humanity

But you can still enact meaningful policy that has nothing to do with those goals and ideals, but rather seeks to generate support through various means.

Through a history of electioneering, the political machine in the US has produced an environment where administrations have a limited amount of time in which they can feasibly prioritize idealistic goals (if they even want or bother to) while still having enough time and political capital to recover any lost support. And the more disregard your opponent has for selflessness and mutual aid, the more risky it becomes to pursue unpopular positions.

You and I may know that it's good policy. That doesn't make it popular. And "it'll be popular when it works" is not a viable strategy when the opposition has become so good at obstruction, deconstruction, consolidation of power, and manipulation of public perception

I hope that clarifies

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Tbh I just don't think I'm going to be able to make sense of what you're talking about.

Actual governing means negotiating to enforce a collective will, agreed upon through genuine discourse and collaboration motivated by improving society and humanity

But you can still enact meaningful policy that has nothing to do with those goals and ideals, but rather seeks to generate support through various means.

So, only in the first year or so is it possible to enact policies aimed at improving society, but then afterwards you can still pass policies that somehow meaningful despite not being aimed at improving society(?) and the latter isn't actually governing(?).

None of this makes any sense. If there are "various means" available to pass policy, then why would it not be "actually governing" to use those means? And if the policies passed through those means aren't aimed at improving society, then in what way are they meaningful? And for that matter, why can you only enact policy that has nothing to do with improving society during that time period?

Honestly, I'd just suggest scrapping this point entirely and finding a different way of phrasing what you're trying to say.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

No thanks. I'm done trying to explain it. I'm curious if others are having as much trouble understanding or if you're being intentionally obtuse, but there is no other way to say what I'm trying to say. It's complex and nuanced. There is no simple or concise way to say it. So I'm done here. Have a good one 👋

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago

I started out more confrontational tbh but then just got confused by what you meant and have been legitimately trying to figure it out, I'm not being intentionally obtuse.

It seems pretty straightforward to me. If you're enacting policy that improves society through whatever means available, then you're actually governing, if you're not doing that then you're not. Very simple and straightforward terminology. Whatever distinction you're drawing seems meaningless and arbitrary to me.