"Politicians are only in it for themselves". I have heard that comment myself even though I am untainted by victory. The naive / cynical spectrum applied to Jerry Sadowitz's humour is equally applicable to how we see politicians. All politicians may just be in it for themselves or they may all be true philanthropists. How can you be a complete philanthropist without being a saint? After all, we all have to look after our own bills. We can't give all our money away. That tells you that I am not at the extreme end of the naive spectrum.
On the other hand you may criticise politicians for looking towards their own concerns. Their decisions don't relate to right and wrong but how to line their pockets and win more votes. You would then spend time finding contradiction in what they say and do (how do you know when a politician is lying? When their lips move). Even if there is a good result you would still feel the politician is acting in a way that would be approved by Alan B'stard from The New Statesman.
There is a blogger, not a million miles from where I live who reminds me of Jerry Sadowitz at his worst. There is no humour so there is no defence that he is an entertainer. He is a cynical politician. The trouble with this is that his life in not enriched by cynicism. Taking a perceived negative viewpoint and magnifying it makes total cynicism a little more inevitable. Then you end up saying that you have seen it all and can't do anything about it, and then you stop trying.
If you gave me the choice of being totally cynical or totally naive I know which I would choose and my life would possibly be so much the better for it. As with most circumstances it is probably better to have a balanced view and if you can see good in people they maybe they will see good in you.
Change the world
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment