Of course I like it too, but I add that I think that the "defunct economists" were themselves usually the slaves of some defunct theologians.
«I’m not sure how it can be said that politics is “primarily” about interests and not ideas. We might find ourselves in a chicken and egg situation»
I make a difference between politics, which is about power and money, and debates about politics, which are often about metaphysics like idea (sometimes subjectively sincerely, sometimes hypocritically). As to chicken-and-eggs it's the same with the ideas of "structure" and "superstructure".
But look at politics as it is practice, actually-existing politics: politics requires budgets and efforts, across long periods, so it is driven by big donors and big vested lobbies, and they don't spend dozens of billions every year to merely support ideas, but as investments on which they want big returns in terms of power and money. Even upper-middle and middle class people vote mostly for power and money (someone wrote that "residential real estate is the american national religion"), and of course lower class and underclass people often vote for better wages and social insurance.
To achieve power and money most lobbies also push ideas (usually of the "jam tomorrow" type to fool the gullible), but in the same way as my first quote: they choose the "law" if that helps their interests, the "evidence" if that is better for their interests, and they just "pound the table" if they don't have ideas that fit their interests.
The impression that politics is a debate of ideas is sometimes called "wykehamism" in England, from the nickname of a prep school (Winchester): that politics is or should be a debate about the best possible ideas among enlightened people. That is pretty much also clintonian/blairite "technocracy".
PS: As to chicken-and-egg I might agree that "culture" (a specific and wide generalization of "ideas") is ultimately the driver of much behaviour, in the long term, as in the long term what obtains power and money is not so clear, because of what JM Keynes called "radical uncertainty", and "culture" ultimately seems to me a set of survival heuristics as NN Taleb and some anthropologists argue, but in the short-medium term the practice of politics is primarily about power and money.
I don’t disagree. The reality is most politics as practiced is about power or personal gain - even if played out on a global scale by the powerful and acquiesced to by their followers. It is a power-money game. And always has been. The level of detachment from what “should” be behind politics, however, the principles, reasons, ideas, seems to have eroded, and is continuing to erode, to an even more perilous state - approaching the point of meaningless where we’re just monkeys throwing their poo at each other. (Or maybe Vonnegut’s humans in Galapagos - evolved to the point of being immobile seal-like creatures just listening to each other’s farts). The acceptance of debate by the broad public is part of the problem. Fuck debate. I’m old, old school on this and want nothing to do with the rhetoricians, debaters, and sophists. Too much is about “winning” at word play - and even that word play and what constitutes “winning” or a “better” point has been Twitterized to adolescent levels. Most of our politicians are lawyers (rhetoricians) so it really shouldn’t be a surprise.
Aristotle’s famous, “Man (human) is a political animal” is a good example. That statement is so often misquoted and not understood as merely meaning humans are political - engaging in politics and political arrangements. But it is the culmination of an argument that requires not just Aristotle’s Politics to understand, but the Ethics, Logic, De Anima, and Metaphysics. What the fuck are we, what’s going on, why the hell are we doing it, and for what purpose?! It’s not that I expect people to go on these deep philosophical or spiritual journeys - but some level of awareness has to be had or our doom is going to be even doomier!
Maybe to spin Eliot, the world will end not with a bang or a whimper but with a shallow quip and knee-jerk.
«The Keynes quote is really good»
Of course I like it too, but I add that I think that the "defunct economists" were themselves usually the slaves of some defunct theologians.
«I’m not sure how it can be said that politics is “primarily” about interests and not ideas. We might find ourselves in a chicken and egg situation»
I make a difference between politics, which is about power and money, and debates about politics, which are often about metaphysics like idea (sometimes subjectively sincerely, sometimes hypocritically). As to chicken-and-eggs it's the same with the ideas of "structure" and "superstructure".
But look at politics as it is practice, actually-existing politics: politics requires budgets and efforts, across long periods, so it is driven by big donors and big vested lobbies, and they don't spend dozens of billions every year to merely support ideas, but as investments on which they want big returns in terms of power and money. Even upper-middle and middle class people vote mostly for power and money (someone wrote that "residential real estate is the american national religion"), and of course lower class and underclass people often vote for better wages and social insurance.
To achieve power and money most lobbies also push ideas (usually of the "jam tomorrow" type to fool the gullible), but in the same way as my first quote: they choose the "law" if that helps their interests, the "evidence" if that is better for their interests, and they just "pound the table" if they don't have ideas that fit their interests.
The impression that politics is a debate of ideas is sometimes called "wykehamism" in England, from the nickname of a prep school (Winchester): that politics is or should be a debate about the best possible ideas among enlightened people. That is pretty much also clintonian/blairite "technocracy".
PS: As to chicken-and-egg I might agree that "culture" (a specific and wide generalization of "ideas") is ultimately the driver of much behaviour, in the long term, as in the long term what obtains power and money is not so clear, because of what JM Keynes called "radical uncertainty", and "culture" ultimately seems to me a set of survival heuristics as NN Taleb and some anthropologists argue, but in the short-medium term the practice of politics is primarily about power and money.
I don’t disagree. The reality is most politics as practiced is about power or personal gain - even if played out on a global scale by the powerful and acquiesced to by their followers. It is a power-money game. And always has been. The level of detachment from what “should” be behind politics, however, the principles, reasons, ideas, seems to have eroded, and is continuing to erode, to an even more perilous state - approaching the point of meaningless where we’re just monkeys throwing their poo at each other. (Or maybe Vonnegut’s humans in Galapagos - evolved to the point of being immobile seal-like creatures just listening to each other’s farts). The acceptance of debate by the broad public is part of the problem. Fuck debate. I’m old, old school on this and want nothing to do with the rhetoricians, debaters, and sophists. Too much is about “winning” at word play - and even that word play and what constitutes “winning” or a “better” point has been Twitterized to adolescent levels. Most of our politicians are lawyers (rhetoricians) so it really shouldn’t be a surprise.
Aristotle’s famous, “Man (human) is a political animal” is a good example. That statement is so often misquoted and not understood as merely meaning humans are political - engaging in politics and political arrangements. But it is the culmination of an argument that requires not just Aristotle’s Politics to understand, but the Ethics, Logic, De Anima, and Metaphysics. What the fuck are we, what’s going on, why the hell are we doing it, and for what purpose?! It’s not that I expect people to go on these deep philosophical or spiritual journeys - but some level of awareness has to be had or our doom is going to be even doomier!
Maybe to spin Eliot, the world will end not with a bang or a whimper but with a shallow quip and knee-jerk.