I am very suspicious of nice people in positions of power. This shows up often in local elections, where you know that Samantha is a jerk and Charles is a stuffed shirt and their opponents are nice women who volunteer at the schools (and so supposedly know what's going on there) and have sons who made Eagle Scout this year or whatever. I am slightly inclined to vote against such people. They choose their positions on the basis of niceness, because it is important to them. They like other nice people and programs which sound like they should do good things for people who deserve good things being done for them, with no supporting data whatsoever.
They are the most easily swayed by other Nice People.
This is not a suggestion that you should actively seek out jerks. It might be a suggestion that you give a second look (but never a third) to the weird people.
The practical people are little better, if at all. They are too easily swayed by charlatans who are not nice but put up the banners of how great this would be if it were true. The name Elizabeth Holmes may come to mind here.
If, if, and if.
There is an analog to the discussion going on over at Grim's about treason. Most of us grew up in good times in nice places and the idea of treason in out schoolbooks - even out college textbooks - was right out. We could trust the government at least that much, that it shouldn't be overthrown. Plus, the overthrowing people were clearly lying and playing a secret hand. Well, sure. Usually you don't have to examine the core premises that closely. The good guys are 80% good and the bad guys are 80% bad, let's go to Disney World and not think about it. But when we get down to 60-40, it can become situation by situation, issue by issue, region by region. "Treason" turns out to be one of those things where we say "It depends."
So too with nice people and practical people. First, assume that neither is neither, though they at least want to be. Only then can you move forward. The ambiguities of local elections are not a distraction, they actually highlight the real national problem. Eschew niceness. Eschew practicality.
I honestly can't wait to get back to assessing local elections like this. The last three my criteria have been "have I personally seen them commit a felony".
ReplyDeleteI think 2027 might be the year we get back to normal, fingers crossed.
Are you distinguishing between 'nice' and 'good'?
ReplyDeleteYes, as in the Gospel of Niceness.
ReplyDelete"Nice," as you know, is a faithless word, having meant at one time this and at another time that. The present sense of agreeableness when applied to persons means insipid or devoid of strong character. A "nice guy" never does or says anything shocking or out of the ordinary because assertion of the self is not "nice." You will never get in an argument with a nice man, nor will you afterwards remember anything he said. Nice guys deserve to finish last because trying to finish first is not nice.
ReplyDeleteYou're right about "practical" or "pragmatic" politicians because they are merely efficient executors of policy that others propose. I'd take a second look at a politician who admitted that he could do little to change public policy, but promised that he would at least execute that policy inefficiently.
In the recent sheriff primary the incumbent said, "Look, this job is really tough and my budget isn't big enough to compete effectively with neighboring counties for retention, and that'd be true for my opponent too." The opponent said, "I'll fix everything if elected."
ReplyDeleteOne of those is at least not blowing smoke at you.