It seems to me that 'Career' Politicians are usually 'irresponsible' in any country, their policies rarely agreed to, or put to the vote by the people. They use only the vices to further their own interests, knowing they hold temporary positions anyway, so self-serving decisions are made usually to fill their coffers, control any rivals, and to enable them to continue 'business' after their stint in power. They seem to hone in on one detail to solve, not seeing how their actions will have far-reaching effects like a medicine that can create multiple side effects. I am not saying this is happening particularly in France, but I am aware of it in local and more global terms. It is difficult to put one's neck on the line to give any plausible political opinions anymore or to fight for rights without having fear of a backlash.
Today it has become very difficult to have a reasonable political discussion. There is not only a radicalization of the political chessboard, but also a radicalization of people's minds.
I tend to feel that it comes from a short-term perspective, fed by institutions, of course, but also by changes in the media. I have a question for you on this point? When most political information was made public through newspapers (and eventually one or two TC channels), was the situation a bit different or not?
Definitely different, because mobile phones and global networks have made a huge difference. Anyone can whip out a phone and take a photograph of, or film what is really going on, within reason... Newspapers were always a day or so late with stories. News channels were only at certain hours in the day. There are current all-day news channels now. We see everything faster and instantly. Over the years I have known writers and journalists who are struggling now, photo-journalists who are beaten to the post. It is no longer a profession for them and AI may also take over. Even banking is automated, no writing of cheques. How soon will coins disappear? We have no time to digest or relax with the news papers, and what seems to be happening more than ever is indifference. I grew up in Northern Ireland. The first bombs I heard of as a child were shocking. Then, after a year, it was matter-of-fact and a sort of dark humour set in, wondering if we will dodge one today. The indifference makes us detached observers, which in itself could be a very yogic state, however this is forced by new technology. I sometimes pick up a newspaper and immediately turn to the cryptic crossword or do a difficult soduko, just to pace my mind, because I know the news already, wish to avoid it, or have no time for it. I am not the only one, I am sure. ***
Your answer does not surprise me. Probably not every child will experience war, but it has become more or less impossible, for example, to protect children from images of war. It seems to me that innocence is not even an option. In French education, being aware of the world situation is pretty much the norm, but in a way it follows education. Today, there is no way not to be exposed to the cruelty of the world, even before being able to understand what images are.
I agree with you that being aware of the world is a current ongoing history lesson now, part of education... as you say, the norm. France has had its share of frightening situations that must have been disturbing for children, not only for themselves but fear for their parents being caught up in some unsuspecting act of terrorism. I have friends in France who 'just missed' one or another sudden situation, also similar things happening here in Britain. Strange old world at the moment. x
Responsibility should mean, in its best sense, the ability to respond to the situation around one, in the way that best solves the problem(s), that need attending to. In some cases, that requires a quick and direct mode of action, but in others, it requires pragmatism, which often requires waiting, for the best solution to emerge. Macron, may or may not be following this, just not as he anticipated.
As for Melanchon, he may be doing them in reverse, pragmatism, on the hope to succeed, by default, followed by a series of quick direct actions.
Like most political power problems, they will sort themselves out, when their is no other choice.
Thank you very much. I knew you'd probably write a comment on this post as well! I would probably agree with you without hesitation in a different profession. For example, take an employee in a consulting firm. He has a clear request from his client and is trying to solve it. He has to be pragmatic, which means he has to decide on a very precise course of action to solve a precise problem or respond to a precise request.
In the case of national political leaders (be it President Macron or Jean-Luc Mélenchon), I think (maybe I am wrong) that the question is not the same. There is not a single problem to be solved, but a range of problems of different importance, some local, some national, some more global, some economic, others political or institutional, and so on.
Then the question becomes, from my point of view, which problem should they prioritize, knowing that some problems may be unsolvable or may get worse if they prioritize another problem.
From such a perspective, they choose to solve what they consider to be the most important problem (in this case for them), but this problem was only more important on a lower scale and not at all on a higher scale.
But of course I have no certainty, only a strong feeling that they are able to achieve so much more with a different way of thinking.
They may also prioritize the most easily to solve, as it shows some accomplishments, without having to commit to anything major. This has been my experience in watching what happens in American politics. French politics may be different, but human nature is still much the same where ever one goes.
It seems to me that 'Career' Politicians are usually 'irresponsible' in any country, their policies rarely agreed to, or put to the vote by the people. They use only the vices to further their own interests, knowing they hold temporary positions anyway, so self-serving decisions are made usually to fill their coffers, control any rivals, and to enable them to continue 'business' after their stint in power. They seem to hone in on one detail to solve, not seeing how their actions will have far-reaching effects like a medicine that can create multiple side effects. I am not saying this is happening particularly in France, but I am aware of it in local and more global terms. It is difficult to put one's neck on the line to give any plausible political opinions anymore or to fight for rights without having fear of a backlash.
Today it has become very difficult to have a reasonable political discussion. There is not only a radicalization of the political chessboard, but also a radicalization of people's minds.
I tend to feel that it comes from a short-term perspective, fed by institutions, of course, but also by changes in the media. I have a question for you on this point? When most political information was made public through newspapers (and eventually one or two TC channels), was the situation a bit different or not?
Definitely different, because mobile phones and global networks have made a huge difference. Anyone can whip out a phone and take a photograph of, or film what is really going on, within reason... Newspapers were always a day or so late with stories. News channels were only at certain hours in the day. There are current all-day news channels now. We see everything faster and instantly. Over the years I have known writers and journalists who are struggling now, photo-journalists who are beaten to the post. It is no longer a profession for them and AI may also take over. Even banking is automated, no writing of cheques. How soon will coins disappear? We have no time to digest or relax with the news papers, and what seems to be happening more than ever is indifference. I grew up in Northern Ireland. The first bombs I heard of as a child were shocking. Then, after a year, it was matter-of-fact and a sort of dark humour set in, wondering if we will dodge one today. The indifference makes us detached observers, which in itself could be a very yogic state, however this is forced by new technology. I sometimes pick up a newspaper and immediately turn to the cryptic crossword or do a difficult soduko, just to pace my mind, because I know the news already, wish to avoid it, or have no time for it. I am not the only one, I am sure. ***
Your answer does not surprise me. Probably not every child will experience war, but it has become more or less impossible, for example, to protect children from images of war. It seems to me that innocence is not even an option. In French education, being aware of the world situation is pretty much the norm, but in a way it follows education. Today, there is no way not to be exposed to the cruelty of the world, even before being able to understand what images are.
I agree with you that being aware of the world is a current ongoing history lesson now, part of education... as you say, the norm. France has had its share of frightening situations that must have been disturbing for children, not only for themselves but fear for their parents being caught up in some unsuspecting act of terrorism. I have friends in France who 'just missed' one or another sudden situation, also similar things happening here in Britain. Strange old world at the moment. x
Responsibility should mean, in its best sense, the ability to respond to the situation around one, in the way that best solves the problem(s), that need attending to. In some cases, that requires a quick and direct mode of action, but in others, it requires pragmatism, which often requires waiting, for the best solution to emerge. Macron, may or may not be following this, just not as he anticipated.
As for Melanchon, he may be doing them in reverse, pragmatism, on the hope to succeed, by default, followed by a series of quick direct actions.
Like most political power problems, they will sort themselves out, when their is no other choice.
Thank you very much. I knew you'd probably write a comment on this post as well! I would probably agree with you without hesitation in a different profession. For example, take an employee in a consulting firm. He has a clear request from his client and is trying to solve it. He has to be pragmatic, which means he has to decide on a very precise course of action to solve a precise problem or respond to a precise request.
In the case of national political leaders (be it President Macron or Jean-Luc Mélenchon), I think (maybe I am wrong) that the question is not the same. There is not a single problem to be solved, but a range of problems of different importance, some local, some national, some more global, some economic, others political or institutional, and so on.
Then the question becomes, from my point of view, which problem should they prioritize, knowing that some problems may be unsolvable or may get worse if they prioritize another problem.
From such a perspective, they choose to solve what they consider to be the most important problem (in this case for them), but this problem was only more important on a lower scale and not at all on a higher scale.
But of course I have no certainty, only a strong feeling that they are able to achieve so much more with a different way of thinking.
They may also prioritize the most easily to solve, as it shows some accomplishments, without having to commit to anything major. This has been my experience in watching what happens in American politics. French politics may be different, but human nature is still much the same where ever one goes.