do you care about politics?

[TheManBeyond]

Lately every time i talk with someone here in my country everything ends up blaming somehow politics.
I wonder if there's truly a reason for caring about it.
Please someone explain me why should i care or why it is like i think a waste of time.
As i see it there will be no major changes if one party or another take the lead. Minor differences at the end with no big impact on me as an individual.
What i see is just pink press.

 

[Sinny91]

Even if you don't take an interest in politics, it will take an interest in you.
Maybe you'll find out first hand one day.

 

[Grayman]

Politics isn't just about voting and if you are reducing it to that then you are missing the bigger picture of how to affect change in your community.

1 Paying attention to what you buy and making others aware of the problems with various products and companies and who those companies associate with. (Boycotting)
2 Donating money to foundations that promote growth in political areas you agree with. (green energy, woman's health, police/fire/veterans, adoption agencies, mental health agencies, food and shelter, etc...)
3 Donating time in awareness programs and in helping acquire donations for a cause etc...
4 Bringing up issues in discussions with friends and various people so that the word spreads
5 Write books, make songs, make a documentary, report an issue to your local news
6 Sign various petitions, go and get other people to sign those petitions
7 Finally vote

What is interesting in the US is how active people get during a presidential election. I think it is problematic when a person only concerns themselves with such elections and forgets about their local representatives, their schools, their police, companies, industry, farming, the local culture, and the politics the go on right in their own back yard.

 

[Sinny91]

The politics the go on right in their own back yard.

I couldn't agree more.

For example, my local MP is at the heart of the 'New Labour Neoconservative' movement. I shit you not.

Gisela Staurt (Labour MP)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gisela_Stuart

A German born in '55, moved to England in '74 and became my local MP in '97. She's served on a number of committees, most relating to the Blair cabinet.

Parliamentary career

In 1995, Stuart was selected as Labour's prospective parliamentary candidate for the Birmingham Edgbaston constituency, which had been held by the Conservative Party for 99 years. On 1 May 1997, Stuart was elected as the first ever Labour MP for the seat, making it one of a succession of traditionally conservative seats to succumb to the landslide Labour victory. Stuart's victory was the first televised Labour gain of the evening.

During the first Tony Blair premiership, Stuart served on the Social Security Select Committee and in 1998 as PPS to Home Office Minister of State Paul Boateng, before joining the Government in 1999 as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health. Stuart left the Government in the reshuffle that followed the 2001 General Election.[4] Her election agent in that election was John Clancy, who in 2015 became leader of Birmingham City Council.[5]

In Blair's second term, Stuart was appointed as one of the UK Parliamentary Representatives to the European Convention, which was tasked with drawing up a new constitution for the European Union. In this capacity, Stuart also served as one of the 13 members of the Convention's Presidium - the steering group responsible for managing the business of the Convention.

The experience of drawing up the Constitution had a significant impact upon Stuart's views of the European Union. When the draft Constitution finally emerged, Stuart was amongst its most trenchant critics, stating that it had been drawn up by a "self-selected group of the European political elite" determined to deepen European integration. She subsequently expounded upon these views in a 2004 Fabian Society pamphlet, "The Making of Europe's Constitution". Consequently, she has argued in favour of leaving the European Union, thus becoming one of the leading figures in Labour's eurosceptic wing.[6]

Between 2001 and 2010, Stuart also served as a member of the House of Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs.[7]

She held Birmingham Edgbaston for Labour at the 2005 General Election but her majority was exactly halved in both percentage and numerical terms. Despite the predictions of the pundits, Stuart went on to retain the seat at the 2010 general election, against a national tide of Labour defeat.[8] Her successful campaign has been seen as a model for a new style of community-based Labour politics. It also earned her the title of Survivor of the Year at The Spectator magazine’s 2010 Parliamentarian of the Year awards, which was presented to her by the new Conservative Prime Minister, David Cameron.[9] She retained her seat at the 2015 General Election with a majority of 2,706, more than double her majority from 2010.[10]

She is a signatory of the Henry Jackson Society principles, which promote the spread of liberal democracy across the world and the maintenance of a strong military with global expeditionary reach.[11] Following the election[which?], she joined the Commons Select Committee on Defence.[12]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gisela_Stuart

Henry Jackson Society: Project for Democratic Geopolitics

The Henry Jackson Society Project for Democratic Geopolitics is a British neoconservative think tank and political action committee (PAC) which is supported by key US neocons and by two of Prime Minister David Cameron's closest advisers and ministers. It was launched in Cambridge on 11 March 2005 and in the Houses of Parliament on 22 November 2005. [1] The manifesto for the society was published by the Social Affairs Unit.

According to Marko Attila Hoare, Matthew Jamison organised the first meeting of the embryonic Henry Jackson Society at Peterhouse, Cambridge, in the autumn of 2004.[3]

According to its own account the Henry Jackson Society was launched online on 11 March 2005, ‘after several months and much hard work.’ [4] Its online launch was announced in a press release drafted by the ‘Organising Committee’ – the body which ran the Society before its registration as a UK charity. The Organising Committee consisted mainly of academics affiliated to Peterhouse, a conservative college at Cambridge University. They were led by Brendan Simms and Alan Mendoza, the Society’s co-founders. [5] Brendan Simms, a Cambridge historian, was then best known for his book Unfinest Hour: Britain and the Destruction of Bosnia, a highly critical account of British (non-interventionist) policy during the Bosnian War. Mendoza had written his PhD thesis on British policy during the conflict.

The HJS’s homepage originally displayed the following message:

The Henry Jackson Society is a non-profit organisation that seeks to promote the following principles: that liberal democracy should be spread across the world; that as the world’s most powerful democracies, the United States and the European Union – under British leadership – must shape the world more actively by intervention and example; that such leadership requires political will, a commitment to universal human rights and the maintenance of a strong military with global expeditionary reach; and that too few of our leaders in Britain and the rest of Europe today are ready to play a role in the world that matches our strength and responsibilities. [6]
The HJS was launched in Cambridge on 15 June 2005. At the launch event Gary Kent of Labour Friends of Iraq spoke about ‘The Left and Iraq’. That was followed by a drinks reception in the Fellow's Garden in Peterhouse and a formal dinner in Clare Hall. [7] The Society’s Westminster launch took place on 22 November 2005 in the Jubilee Room of the House of Commons. It was hosted by Michael Gove and Gisela Stuart.

http://powerbase.info/index.php/Henry_Jackson_Society:_Project_for_Democratic_Geopolitics

I will be expressing my concerns.

 

[TBerg]

The Henry Jackson Society is my favorite UK think tank, especially since Douglas Murray joined. My only problem is when neoconservatism becomes diluted by political concerns. If we cannot have unadulterated neoconservative policy, then it is more prudent to pursue a more Trump-like posture, with clearer tactics and more minimal objectives.

On a more general note about politics, though, I would just say that it is more important to concern oneself with cultural trends, because politics is downstream from culture. You cannot have a given political order without first having the culture to clothe it.

 

[TBerg]

Basically, the more debauched individuals and communities are, the more debauched the political order and the more debauched the political order can inflict further debauchery, as the house of glass is too weak to resist downfall.

 

[TBerg]

Sorry for the gratuitous use of debauched.

 

[emmabobary]

nej, knulla politik

 

[Analyzer]

I care more about culture than politics, although political organization is perhaps the most interesting subject as far as human affairs are concerned. Along with religion, it's pretty much just applied social philosophy. But without an established culture in society, politics is essentially a free-for-all power grab between different groups of people looking to establish control as Machiavelli has noted. One group tries to use political power to their own advantage caring little about the long run. Culture is what can keep civilizations like the Minoans at peace for thousands of years.

Economic forces ultimately determines the mechanics of how societies rise and fall. But as a people, we for whatever reason have a hard time understanding those principles that determine human action and look to authority figures. Political leaders take advantage of this understanding, then combined with of our laziness instinct, the masses end up submitting to their servitude. At least in the beginning, until it's time to replace the regime with another one. A superficial change occurs as the state and it's bureaucracy remains until it's sucked all the life of society. It's an ever occurring cycle in civilization.

 

[Hadoblado]

I too am upset by politics.

Less because I don't think it affects me, more because even the very best outcomes seem shitty to me. It feels like involvement would be like choosing between really crap, and even worse than previous benchmark level crap.

But it's not all the same. I think that maybe that's a line sold somewhere upstream to maintain party loyalty. All things being equal, people will continue to vote for the same party if not given a reason to jump ship. So depicting both sides in a two party system as equally evil will maintain status quo. Not that the line doesn't get more blurry as time passes. Politicians are after-all in the business of telling people what they want to hear.

 

[Sinny91]

The Henry Jackson Society is my favorite UK think tank, especially since Douglas Murray joined. My only problem is when neoconservatism becomes diluted by political concerns. If we cannot have unadulterated neoconservative policy, then it is more prudent to pursue a more Trump-like posture, with clearer tactics and more minimal objectives.

On a more general note about politics, though, I would just say that it is more important to concern oneself with cultural trends, because politics is downstream from culture. You cannot have a given political order without first having the culture to clothe it.

You remind me of a compass going haywire.

'favorite UK think tank' ... begs belief.

Retracted because I might get into trouble, Suffice it to say, I think the neoconservatives are nout but shit on my shoe... how are you doing down there?

 

[EditorOne]

"What is interesting in the US is how active people get during a presidential election. I think it is problematic when a person only concerns themselves with such elections and forgets about their local representatives, their schools, their police, companies, industry, farming, the local culture, and the politics the go on right in their own back yard."

True enough, but partly that's because US media have abandoned local politics except for the most shallow horse-race kind of coverage at election time. Few newspapers have the staff these days to get into the kind of highly detailed reporting of weekly or monthly meetings of local government that used to be the heart of a newspaper and the source of information for comment and debate among the populations served. If you cover it, if you make the facts and situations known and the contexts clear, people will be interested.

Meanwhile, I have no problem with people who disdain politics. I do however have a problem with people who disdain politics and then see fit to complain about the policies and outcomes that politics produces. If you can't see basic cause and effect between political choices made and no loans for college education, high interest for mortgages, no jobs, bad roads, high taxes, lack of decent food standards, and all the rest that makes up everyday life, just live with the results and have the good manners to be quiet.

 

[Seteleechete]

I care about politics in an intellectual sense. As in deciding what type of ideology/policies/peole I favour under which presumptive circumstances and why I do so as well as an alternative set of what I think would be most efficient, why etc. I don't actually care about politics in reality(except maybe to study how it works).

 

[deathvirtuoso]

I used to take interest when I was 11/12, and often ended up arguing with my parents over it. I'm kind of losing interest already... I'll probably get back to it when I turn legal lol

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Obviously everyone can't have their voice heard or things exactly the way they want, but in the US at least representation and compromise is thwarted by the severe lack of viable alternative parties. At a very young age we are brainwashed by the media framing every political issue into a matter of Democrat vs Republican.

Despite this, it is still much easier and feasible to effect change at the local level if one cares enough and works with others to get involved. Personally I do vote in my state elections but I'm not really involved otherwise, I feel like it would be too much of a burden.

 

[Reluctantly]

Sometimes I fantasize about becoming President or rich and powerful with the sole purpose of creating chaos and war in the world. I could be HitlerX2, but instead of hating one group I'd hate everyone equally.

But I don't have the drive to care enough to even try.

Other than that, I'm embarrassed that I ever really took it seriously. The powerful elect two officials for President and make us choose from them. They win either way. I'm pretty much a libertarian, but they've never had a chance to win as a third party. As for states, I've never seen a big enough difference between electing one official over the other for me to care. The President can wage wars, enforce law/programs to all states, spearhead programs to aid industry, and influence foreign policy, while the state representatives deal with funding schools, building roads/stadiums, provisioning tax rates, just all the stuff that I don't ever see a big effect on.

It is interesting that Colorado legalized Marijuana though. That's a big deal to me that I'd actually care about state government if I lived there.