This critique ends up one of the places where my Dad, Michael, ended up years ago while studying, researching, and teaching political science.
If politics were an ethical hierarchy, we wouldn't have ethical choices.
So, its not an ethical hierarchy.
So, public speeches are almost nothing compared to what's concealed under the surface.
Politicians probably do whatever is exciting, or whatever they can get away with.
If so, there is something wrong with ethical choices, because they ask us to hive up power, and the power itself is not very ethical.
If ethics is for the weak, its attractiveness is deceptive.
If the atttaction to ethics is deceptive, there is no longer reason to trust ethics.
If we cannot trust ethics, it is duplicitous.
If ethics is duplicitous, it does not even have principle.
If ethics is without principle, it may be hard to defend any principle.
Therefore, politics seems to offer in its defense that it has no principle, that if it is duplicitous, at least it is not weak.
However, duplicitous atrength raises strong contradictions unless the roles of good and evil are reversed, which to good people should look like complete evil.
Therefore, politics looks like complete evil to good people, and if it has principle it is either weak or duplicitous.
Therefore, the hope of politics is with or without principle, in one case weak, in the other evil.
Therefore, the power of politics comes from divided strength. So, politics is weak, so politics is either good or lacks principle.
So there is nothing good about politics except principle.
The only successful politics is failure. The best politics is a successful failure.
Or perhaps politics is not reasonable, never relatively successful, and always greedy.
No comments:
Post a Comment