But then we'd have a fertile place for new plants to grow. It would be a garden that requires careful attention, but might bear healthy fruits which a swamp will never do.
This was a useful construct, which I’m condensing down into “the moral armature for public service.” At first I said to myself, “how will I know it when I see it?” But then I realized, it’s really fairly obvious. People can’t generally hide who they are, at least not for long.
This ratcheting effect that a rise in social status has on a person is insidious. I started as a grungy Gen Xer and have risen and fallen moderately and felt it myself. Getting respect and deference and being situated where people have to listen to you changes the way you perceive the world.
I can't imagine how hard it must be at higher levels. It reminds me of Chris Hayes, a guy who started off a sincere journalist and even wrote "The Twilight of the Elites" and then became a highly paid shill, exactly what he had himself described. It's the old saying about how power corrupts and one reason why we need to curb the creation of billionaires. No one can possibly get to that point and maintain any sense of moral perspective.
Perhaps there should be a new career called "humblers" who are hired to keep certain people in their place. But a "humbler" would need to be either a volunteer or paid by someone other than the person he or she is assigned to.
My adult children and my wife are avid and effective volunteers for me!
Yes, but effective humblers are likely to see their own effectiveness and feel the same affirmation from that role and so it goes...
This is one reason I favor term limits. The status seekers are less likely to seek it in politics if they know it has an end date after which they will have to ask themselves, Now what? The loss of office, even through term limits, will be a humbler without an ego.
Thanks for this posting. It explains a great deal, including why we are so often disappointed with those whom we elect. Very few are humble and sufficiently selfless to remain so when so many perks are offered and they know more are offered at the next level.
Your post, however, also speaks to a truth about the broader world of social media. We don't have to be elected to derive some of the perks. We can simply establish a presence on social media to get some likes or positive comments and we're possibly off in that same direction, even if on a smaller scale. I believe it can be easy for a substack writer to feel good about himself as subscriptions and comments flow, just as it is gratifying for me when I post photos of my woodwork and get likes and comments. I see it enough to understand that it can be addictive and lead to more posting, looking for reactions, more posting/reactions, etc, etc. In that way, millions of us get but a taste, a mere nibble, of what politicians get on a much grander scale. I'm happy with dozens of likes. How would I react if thousands of people went out to vote for me? Hundreds of thousands? Millions? Would I remain humble?
Therein lies a major problem. The people who are running for office are (more often than not, in my opinion) actually running for more self-affirmation and not to do what is best for the community, state or nation. We are forced to choose among politicians, not statesmen or patriots.
If we are honest with ourselves, we see this in ourselves with our social media posts. Politicians have greater needs and appetites for the same affirmation we feel.
Absolutely we are all susceptible to self-affirmation via social media or anywhere else we can find it.
Of course, it makes me feel good when I know someone has read/likes a post of mine. But, you're right the feedback loop is seductive.
I suppose the trick is to resist any one thing to be the stars and moon of your self-affirmation. To try to achieve a balance among family, friends, vocation, and community for example.
Kind of like a diversified portfolio of self-esteem.
Pipe dream? Sure. But we can and should speak out and I think we should speak out especially about our own, meaning D voters should speak against D officials and R voters do likewise. Both parties would be better off cleaning their own homes and it would avoid much unnecessary rancor. In fact, it would take away ammunition for the other side. As an example, I always thought the Rs missed a golden opportunity when they resisted impeachment. They should have clamored for it for their own sake. It was an opportunity to get rid of T and by taking ownership and leading that charge they would have blunted the swords the Ds rightfully pointed at them. I could go on and cite examples on the D side, but you get the point and I am fully non-partisan about pointing out bipartisan nonsense. The parties have more in common than either will admit.
If you drain the swamp there will be very few left.
But then we'd have a fertile place for new plants to grow. It would be a garden that requires careful attention, but might bear healthy fruits which a swamp will never do.
I think that is one thing that both libs and conservatives can agree upon.
I’d love to fire them all and start over-but I’d also like to whittle away at least half if not more of the federal government. Pipe dream.
At the higher and national levels of public service, yes, I agree.
I have more hope for the local levels that are arguably as or even more important.
Library Boards now, especially need people with pure motives.
They have always been important, but we are all now realizing how important they are.
Some are appointed, some just volunteer, some are elected.
Jimmy Carter's first political activity was the Library Board: https://www.jimmycarterlibrary.gov/about_us/biography_of_jimmy_carter
This was a useful construct, which I’m condensing down into “the moral armature for public service.” At first I said to myself, “how will I know it when I see it?” But then I realized, it’s really fairly obvious. People can’t generally hide who they are, at least not for long.
This ratcheting effect that a rise in social status has on a person is insidious. I started as a grungy Gen Xer and have risen and fallen moderately and felt it myself. Getting respect and deference and being situated where people have to listen to you changes the way you perceive the world.
I can't imagine how hard it must be at higher levels. It reminds me of Chris Hayes, a guy who started off a sincere journalist and even wrote "The Twilight of the Elites" and then became a highly paid shill, exactly what he had himself described. It's the old saying about how power corrupts and one reason why we need to curb the creation of billionaires. No one can possibly get to that point and maintain any sense of moral perspective.
Perhaps there should be a new career called "humblers" who are hired to keep certain people in their place. But a "humbler" would need to be either a volunteer or paid by someone other than the person he or she is assigned to.
My adult children and my wife are avid and effective volunteers for me!
Yes, but effective humblers are likely to see their own effectiveness and feel the same affirmation from that role and so it goes...
This is one reason I favor term limits. The status seekers are less likely to seek it in politics if they know it has an end date after which they will have to ask themselves, Now what? The loss of office, even through term limits, will be a humbler without an ego.
Thanks for this posting. It explains a great deal, including why we are so often disappointed with those whom we elect. Very few are humble and sufficiently selfless to remain so when so many perks are offered and they know more are offered at the next level.
Your post, however, also speaks to a truth about the broader world of social media. We don't have to be elected to derive some of the perks. We can simply establish a presence on social media to get some likes or positive comments and we're possibly off in that same direction, even if on a smaller scale. I believe it can be easy for a substack writer to feel good about himself as subscriptions and comments flow, just as it is gratifying for me when I post photos of my woodwork and get likes and comments. I see it enough to understand that it can be addictive and lead to more posting, looking for reactions, more posting/reactions, etc, etc. In that way, millions of us get but a taste, a mere nibble, of what politicians get on a much grander scale. I'm happy with dozens of likes. How would I react if thousands of people went out to vote for me? Hundreds of thousands? Millions? Would I remain humble?
Therein lies a major problem. The people who are running for office are (more often than not, in my opinion) actually running for more self-affirmation and not to do what is best for the community, state or nation. We are forced to choose among politicians, not statesmen or patriots.
If we are honest with ourselves, we see this in ourselves with our social media posts. Politicians have greater needs and appetites for the same affirmation we feel.
Absolutely we are all susceptible to self-affirmation via social media or anywhere else we can find it.
Of course, it makes me feel good when I know someone has read/likes a post of mine. But, you're right the feedback loop is seductive.
I suppose the trick is to resist any one thing to be the stars and moon of your self-affirmation. To try to achieve a balance among family, friends, vocation, and community for example.
Kind of like a diversified portfolio of self-esteem.
Pipe dream? Sure. But we can and should speak out and I think we should speak out especially about our own, meaning D voters should speak against D officials and R voters do likewise. Both parties would be better off cleaning their own homes and it would avoid much unnecessary rancor. In fact, it would take away ammunition for the other side. As an example, I always thought the Rs missed a golden opportunity when they resisted impeachment. They should have clamored for it for their own sake. It was an opportunity to get rid of T and by taking ownership and leading that charge they would have blunted the swords the Ds rightfully pointed at them. I could go on and cite examples on the D side, but you get the point and I am fully non-partisan about pointing out bipartisan nonsense. The parties have more in common than either will admit.