Ignorance is bliss for self in many circumstances. However politicians' ignorance becomes a disaster for millions, especially when it is ignorance of their own (and their advisers') ignorance. This statement could go any which way. Please throw some light on this as experienced/studied by you.
Dear colleagues
By and large I have the experience that tells;
Politicians of the first world tend to show that they were ignorant when they took a tragic action for some people, or countries. They knowingly tend to blame someone else for their ignorance. Generally they are not ignorant, they are in the full knowledge and they always have plan B to embrace if something gets wrong, or caught.
Contrary to that, politicians from the third world are ignorant in many areas, they are easily manipulated by their advisers. They are also ignorant of their ignorance in a manner and hence have no concrete plan Bs to help them get out of a situation.
I am still feeling ignorant of my ignorance in this field
Hope our collective would make me a little knowledgeable in this field!!!
I dare share some background from a Latin-American perspective. Over here politicians are ignorant of their ignorance, they are very much hegelians in that they arrive late like Minerva´s owl... At their best, they explain circumstances via retrospective prediction.
The cost as you, dear Suresh, point out is the social cost of their incapacities. Generally speaking.
Recently, however, a number of country.projects have begun to set up that have a real impact on the polticians own capacities. The core of the question lies in the relatinship between politics and science, i.e. philosophy.
There may be some politicians who is ignorant of his own ignorance, and act honestly, but with total disregard for the consequences of their actions, but politicians in general are very clever people who know very well what they want to achieve and they do not care what they have to do to achieve their goals; in other words these politicians act unscrupulously and without penalty for the consequences that their actions may have on others.
The problem is that sometimes to achieve their goals, which are usually very perverse and disgusting, most politicians have to commit violations of all kinds breaking any ethics that could exist, particularly in most third world countries where it is much easier to act with greater impunity outside the law because of the high level of corruption that exist is most of them. In more advanced countries, although we cannot exclude the existence of such type of politicians, it is much harder to achieve its objectives in a fraudulent manner without being discovered by the law at some point after leaving the power, which normally occurs when there is a change of the ruling party. There are plenty of examples of both types of politician al over the world.
To be more objective, there are politicians that act honestly and thinking to improve the peoples' lives, but unfortunately this type of politicians can be found in a very limited number in a few countries.
Due to their social responsibility, as the question originally sets it oout the ignorance of politicians is ungergivable. In the Middles Age it was the priest's responsibility to cope with their own ignorance. In a laic world, politicians are to become smarter and wiser, to say the least.
Thanx Carlos and Jorge for sharing your understanding. I used to think some politicians are better than others. I understand now that they may be better than others for some, but not in general. Generally they are our representatives ever ready to sacrifice us in the name of 'poverty' in the third world and in the name of 'weapons of mass destruction' (a video game par excellence) in first world ...for some it is the 'procedure' and for others it is, 'either you are with us or with the terrorists,' There is no alternative.
We certainly need more politicians and managers to manage the mismanagement ...
I would like to add another perspective to this issue. Possibly it could be that the problem does not so much lie with ignorance, but rather with the "personality" of the individual "in power". Take Mahatma Gandhi as an example. I think we would all agree that if we were to place him in one of two categories - "giver" or "taker" - then we would place him in the giver category. For those not all that familiar with Gandhi I suggest you have a look at his book "Satyagraha in South Africa". I am sure we can all think of a number of "leaders" we can place in the "taker" category. Where am I going with this you may well ask? Well, I base what I have said on the work of Robert Moss PhD (he is on RG) and his work on his "dimensional systems model", "clinical biopsychological model", and his "emotional restructuring model" will explain better than I what he means by "givers" and "takers". He suggests that there are basically two personality traits (and not the five that seems to be universally accepted - but which really do not seem to be all that applicable). He also suggests that these traits are "established" very early in life (call it conditioning or attachment or anything you want) and that emotional memories (stored in the right brain hemisphere) - positive or negative memories - play a role in how we act (behave). If Bob is right then we should make sure that we only elect politicians who are "givers" (like Gandhi) and not "takers" like all the despots you can think of. How one does this I do not know. Just some thoughts. Any comments?
Hi John, lovely, a fresh air from your writeup, and thanx for that.
I am thrilled to read your view and expression. I do accept it whole heartedly. My concern is not about the givers as the givers are umpteen but generally are not concerned about politics at a national or international level. For them giving is what they live and die for. Gandhi is certainly one of the greatest in the present times. Many more vanished much before they could even be known and revered by the masses. Most givers are made known to the world by fate, circumstances and revolutions of one or the other kind.
In this world of haves and have nots, rich and famous are not the givers barring a few. Politicians are many, if not uncountable. I personally do not know of any living politician today who cares for humanity first and then everything else. I also do not know of any gain at one place that does not result in a loss at another place. I could not find a politician who's interest is not purely selfish (after winning the elections and then settling into their comfi chair). I wish to believe all or majority is made of the givers, at least people's representatives.
These are all utopian thoughts I have come to believe.
No system of elections would let a 'giver' become a politician, particularly a powerful politician who would give.
Hope to hear from you more on the nitty gritty of the topic ...!!!
I would like just to make a brief comment. Gandhi was not a politician, even though many of his works and deeds were political. Gabdhi was a spiritual man - yes: a giver -, that was aware of the importance of politics. Not to mention Tolstoy, for instance.
I agree with Suresh in the importance of asking very basic, fundamental and probably naïf questions. In this case, concerning politicians. It becomes extremely difficult if not impossible to find one -one single!- politician that is not a taker. Selfishness and self-interest, utilitarianism and self-copncern seem to be the salient features of any politician (or politician-to-be). Hence a most reasonable source forthe disgrace in our world.
I think most politicians are and the name I have for it is "arrogant ignorance". Many people in positions of power, especially law enforcement, suffer from it.
All of us share our inherent dislike for politicians and their pretensions, be it in the 'knowing' form or in 'ignorant' form. For once, let me shed my prejudice and do unto him what I would like him to do unto me - support.
1. Do any one us believe that we have all the solutions for the ills that afflict our own little kingdoms -our family, our work place or even the organization that I may own or be the head of?
2. Presuming that we do, do we all believe that we also have the power - like He Man - to do whatever it takes to remove the ills all by ourselves?
Then why are we after the poor politician whom we give the vote, either directly or by abstention, and send him to an office? Did we know before sending him there that he does know or does not know? Can he do or can he not do?
A friend of mine spent sometime with a seasoned MLA and the politician really became fond of my friend. In one of his lighter moments, my friend reminded him of the villainous reputation that the politician actually had. Patting my friend on the shoulder, the politician said: "you are right. But do you know that 60% of my constituency is white-collar educated lot? Only 10% of them ever turn up to vote in elections. Of the remaining 40%, 39% vote for as low as a meal or a day's wage given in advance or for my caste, etc. I agree that I am ignorant of the problems that face the country. But my dear friend, I know how to get elected in an election and that is all that matters".
I think we must look at what we do not know rather than trying to find out what our political rep does not know. He in any case appears smarter despite his ignorance.
I am of the opinion that politicians know what they need to know. If they didn't, they would not be in politics.
I absolutely agree with Srinivasan. I often hear voters and the lay public speaking against and judging politicians. The truth is that the latter are often a mirror image of the former. In many instances, the political reflection is much better but rarely worse than the reflected object. The masses are easily manipulated by simplistic media and lobby groups ''defining'' politicians' profiles.
People usually don't take the time and are unwilling to observe someone's attitude in depth and judge by themselves. Rather, they prefer to read or hear the opinion of yet another ''neutral'' or ''versed'' journalist or analyst. There are no left or right media, the only type of political media is the lobby media - you get an order to write something for someone. Sometimes politicians are obliged to lie because everyone else - all agents in the system - does so, at other times this ''lie'' is a perception or masks other events unfolding at the same time - it is used to hide a higher order which is kept secret, at least to the masses. Again, this is not necessarily bad. This technique is often used in competitive intelligence (a company may be misleading its competitors by a public announcement while doing something else - the value of openness is not always clear). On the other hand, being too suspicious may be counterproductive and even worse than being naive.
In a democracy, the system works this way - people, parties, organizations play games, money is wasted for elections and campaigns, governments are accountable to the lobby groups (good or bad) which are supporting them. In a monarchy, the few wise and genetically fit surround themselves by a team of highly skilled experts, no money is wasted for campaigns, the work is being executed in the interest of the nation and the moral and responsibility are huge and straightforward because the crown has no interest in doing something against itself and its people, it is not temporary by nature.
Paradoxically, even in countries which have embraced republican ideals (take France as an example), the palaces and other monarchic sites are still a major attraction and have a significant economic share in the field of tourism alone.
Overall, politics is about having a good sense of juggling and balance, an adequate governance of resources and priorities. Just imagine the madness of governance in mixed regimes (a parliamentary democracy and a monarch) and hidden orders - there are too many levels and possible combinations of representation, lobbies and pressures. It is very easy to say politicians are ignorant, just like we are criticizing our physicians. Perhaps some of them are ignorant, many of them are as good as all other people working in other fields, and there are few of them who are outstanding, whose knowledge, influence and action will have an impact on the lives of people who don't deserve it.
Oh, yes! I do believe it! Iv' seen them! I' ve been there!
Very well written and expressed, Hristina, and thanx for the input. Whether ignorent or not, politicians seem to be there for themselves/their party, and mostly not for the general public. It is the struggle for existence of self, rather than for the general public. It is "government of some powerful people, by some people with greater power and for the same people's power."
Dear Suresh,
I believe that most of the actions of the politicians are not to satisfy their needs only. if it were so the world would have ended. But this is also true that there is noone so good that can not commit a mistake and noone so bad that can not do some good things.
politics is the last refuge of scoundrels
our ignorance is their business
they are brilliant
Politics is the play ground of idiots and scoundrels of the human society, but unfortunately few University faculties and administrators become the players of this play ground. We understand every thing but like backbone less creatures remain silent.
Dear Abhi
Thanx for your input. Only the bearer knows where is shoe pinches. As Prof. Muralidharan has also mentioned, public is oppressed by these rouges of society that we elect, and then behave exactly as spineless creatures. This is the price society has to pay when profit is all that is considered. We have become slaves of monetary system of prevailing economic astuteness abandoning life for living symbiotically to the one of greed and profiteering.
God Nature bless us all!!
Dear coleagues,
Yes,
The politicians of the Third World are characterized by:
- There are ignorant in many areas ,
- Easy handling by their advisors.
- Politicians know what they should know . Otherwise they would not be in politics.
- .....
Really, our ignorance is their business.
Regards
When someone is trully ignorant, he will never know he is. Only ignorant people dare to continue on that position.
@ Suresh
Given that politics is the art of hypocrisy everything you suggested is possible
1.Morality has no place in politics
2. Politicians want to keep people poor
3. They will divide on the basis of race and religion
4. politicians do not know economics
5. Politicians want power and not money( may look strange)
Dear Prof. Muralidharan
Aren't politicians puppets in the hands of a few (monetary giants) mainly the international few mega moghuls). If so, then are they not oblivious of the effects and side-effects of the monetary system?
Do you think they know what is the fractional reserve system in banking, in monetary system? Do they know that 90% of wealth created in this system is created out of thin air, not resources as we see them. Do they know that debt and scarcity reward the profiteers. Debt is created by the 90% of this money as well as interest thereof ....
I wish most people understand what I am trying to explain.
Do you think money is not equal to power? Do you think if money was not there in the system, there would be any power other than producing goods to live and sustain life?
The power is maintaining scarcity, abundance will reduce power/gain/profit. And who controls that real or generated scarcity, the big producers, not the politicians. Politicians are the puppets in their hands.
We are the product of our present and our present is nothing but monetary system of economy, until it is gone, we can't survive as a species!!
Thank you all for your contributions. It is good to know various understandings of it in people's mind.
Regards
Politics is part of social system and is good for enforcing balance/equilibrium. But politicians may not deliver while doing politics... this is not desirable.
Thank you Shri Harekrishna
Do you believe in politicians generally being ignorant of their ignorance, or are in the know of their ignorance, or may be they are generally not ignorant???
Regards
Suresh
Yes. There are so many. In politics, education is not a mandatory thing. Even a primary school dropout can be the minister for education. They are more concerned with exercising their powers more than understanding and learning things.
Friends, please accept my gratitude for taking part in this dialogue.
Imagin a nation state as a puppetdom (a puppet state, a word coined by me, I think). Real puppeteer is invisible influencing knowingly and purposely, or having distorted information and creativity, pursuing their own cause (power and money-making only) but influencing the known puppeteer, the head of a state. Elected, or selected followers of the head of state (and for that matter elected members of all the parties) dance to the puppeteer's tune. While dancing they forget that they are of the people, by the people and for the people.
Do you, dear friends and thinkers, feel that these puppets are generally ignorant of their ignorance (of being puppeteered). I, personally still feel that had the puppets known that they were puppeteered by visible/invisible puppeteers, they would not have done what they generally do (wrong decisions).
Is there not even a single nation and a single leader who understands basics of humanity, e.g. availability of universal health and education without any barriers, 'freely' available in monetary terms, and a necessity for better human development?
Quotes from an optimist: George Orwell:
“In our age there is no such thing as ‘keeping out of politics.’ All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia.”
“All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.”
“The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.”
“War against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they are going to profit from it.”
“Threats to freedom of speech, writing and action, though often trivial in isolation, are cumulative in their effect and, unless checked, lead to a general disrespect for the rights of the citizen.”
“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever.”
Squared ignorance means not ignorant. This is very dangerous because it means deliberate. I believe there are many.
Dear Eddie and Pelumi, thank you for the short and sweet answers, and that seems to be the truth. Regards, Suresh
Dear Suresh ,
''Do you believe there are politicians who are ignorant of their ignorance?''
A good example of such a person is Donald Trump : “I went to the Wharton School of Business,” he noted several times. “I’m, like, a really smart person.”
- Louis
Hi Louise
Really, really short and sweet answers, love you, Louise and Aly. Even I sometimes think, "I’m, like, a really smart person.” However, I still wonder, "am I?"
Thanx all, and please do not mock at me when I say, "you all, like, are really smart people."
Suresh
Dear Suresh Sir,
There are many puppet dolls in politics who are the perfect match for the question.They are not smart, they are inefficient if they are ignorant.
Thanks Naveen
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Science