Ok, so my interpretation of “actual governing” as “enacting meaningful policy” is correct? Or does meaningful policy not count as actual governing if it’s done for the sake of earning people’s support? I can’t make heads or tails of your terms.
Are you implying policy only has meaning if it supports your specific goals? Because there has been plenty of meaningful policy that does absolutely nothing to protect or advance the very narrow goals you’ve defined above in this conversation, or even what one might call moral and ethical. What exactly is “meaningful” when it comes to policy? That is such a vague, garage term in this context
Are you implying policy only has meaning if it supports your specific goals?
No? I have no idea how you got any of that from what I said.
I’m just trying to make sense of what the hell it means to “actually govern” if not “enacting meaningful policy.” I thought maybe you were suggesting that, after the initial period of actually governing and enacting policy, they spend the rest of the time enacting meaningless bullshit policies that might win votes but don’t actually affect anything. Based on your response, I’m guessing that’s not what you meant, but that just leaves me even more in the dark about what you do mean.
Can you please just spell out the distinction you’re making? If they’re enacting meaningful policy, how is that not “actually governing?” Stop making me guess.
Your perspective is not the only perspective. Every other person has a complex life, just as complex as yours with its own perspectives
And no one perspective is objectively right or wrong. There is only the opinions we bring to the table, what we each choose to do, how that impacts the world, and who we successfully bring to our cause
And most importantly, the policies I believe are morally and ethically the best path forward are often not widely popular without intense, direct conversation on the nuance of a subject, or until after the policy yields long term success that won’t become apparent until after the next one or more rounds of elections
With that said, acquiring votes often involves identifying what resonates with others and pursuing their support rather than enacting the ideal policies you want to pursue
Actual governing means negotiating to enforce a collective will, agreed upon through genuine discourse and collaboration motivated by improving society and humanity
But you can still enact meaningful policy that has nothing to do with those goals and ideals, but rather seeks to generate support through various means.
Through a history of electioneering, the political machine in the US has produced an environment where administrations have a limited amount of time in which they can feasibly prioritize idealistic goals (if they even want or bother to) while still having enough time and political capital to recover any lost support. And the more disregard your opponent has for selflessness and mutual aid, the more risky it becomes to pursue unpopular positions.
You and I may know that it’s good policy. That doesn’t make it popular. And “it’ll be popular when it works” is not a viable strategy when the opposition has become so good at obstruction, deconstruction, consolidation of power, and manipulation of public perception
Tbh I just don’t think I’m going to be able to make sense of what you’re talking about.
Actual governing means negotiating to enforce a collective will, agreed upon through genuine discourse and collaboration motivated by improving society and humanity
But you can still enact meaningful policy that has nothing to do with those goals and ideals, but rather seeks to generate support through various means.
So, only in the first year or so is it possible to enact policies aimed at improving society, but then afterwards you can still pass policies that somehow meaningful despite not being aimed at improving society(?) and the latter isn’t actually governing(?).
None of this makes any sense. If there are “various means” available to pass policy, then why would it not be “actually governing” to use those means? And if the policies passed through those means aren’t aimed at improving society, then in what way are they meaningful? And for that matter, why can you only enact policy that has nothing to do with improving society during that time period?
Honestly, I’d just suggest scrapping this point entirely and finding a different way of phrasing what you’re trying to say.
No thanks. I’m done trying to explain it. I’m curious if others are having as much trouble understanding or if you’re being intentionally obtuse, but there is no other way to say what I’m trying to say. It’s complex and nuanced. There is no simple or concise way to say it. So I’m done here. Have a good one 👋
I started out more confrontational tbh but then just got confused by what you meant and have been legitimately trying to figure it out, I’m not being intentionally obtuse.
It seems pretty straightforward to me. If you’re enacting policy that improves society through whatever means available, then you’re actually governing, if you’re not doing that then you’re not. Very simple and straightforward terminology. Whatever distinction you’re drawing seems meaningless and arbitrary to me.
I’m glad that I have you as a totally fair and neutral arbitrator on whether or not I “got wrecked.” You definitely hadn’t already decided that would be your conclusion before seeing any of it.
Ok, so my interpretation of “actual governing” as “enacting meaningful policy” is correct? Or does meaningful policy not count as actual governing if it’s done for the sake of earning people’s support? I can’t make heads or tails of your terms.
Are you implying policy only has meaning if it supports your specific goals? Because there has been plenty of meaningful policy that does absolutely nothing to protect or advance the very narrow goals you’ve defined above in this conversation, or even what one might call moral and ethical. What exactly is “meaningful” when it comes to policy? That is such a vague, garage term in this context
No? I have no idea how you got any of that from what I said.
I’m just trying to make sense of what the hell it means to “actually govern” if not “enacting meaningful policy.” I thought maybe you were suggesting that, after the initial period of actually governing and enacting policy, they spend the rest of the time enacting meaningless bullshit policies that might win votes but don’t actually affect anything. Based on your response, I’m guessing that’s not what you meant, but that just leaves me even more in the dark about what you do mean.
Can you please just spell out the distinction you’re making? If they’re enacting meaningful policy, how is that not “actually governing?” Stop making me guess.
Sure.
The important starting point is:
Your perspective is not the only perspective. Every other person has a complex life, just as complex as yours with its own perspectives
And no one perspective is objectively right or wrong. There is only the opinions we bring to the table, what we each choose to do, how that impacts the world, and who we successfully bring to our cause
And most importantly, the policies I believe are morally and ethically the best path forward are often not widely popular without intense, direct conversation on the nuance of a subject, or until after the policy yields long term success that won’t become apparent until after the next one or more rounds of elections
With that said, acquiring votes often involves identifying what resonates with others and pursuing their support rather than enacting the ideal policies you want to pursue
Actual governing means negotiating to enforce a collective will, agreed upon through genuine discourse and collaboration motivated by improving society and humanity
But you can still enact meaningful policy that has nothing to do with those goals and ideals, but rather seeks to generate support through various means.
Through a history of electioneering, the political machine in the US has produced an environment where administrations have a limited amount of time in which they can feasibly prioritize idealistic goals (if they even want or bother to) while still having enough time and political capital to recover any lost support. And the more disregard your opponent has for selflessness and mutual aid, the more risky it becomes to pursue unpopular positions.
You and I may know that it’s good policy. That doesn’t make it popular. And “it’ll be popular when it works” is not a viable strategy when the opposition has become so good at obstruction, deconstruction, consolidation of power, and manipulation of public perception
I hope that clarifies
Tbh I just don’t think I’m going to be able to make sense of what you’re talking about.
So, only in the first year or so is it possible to enact policies aimed at improving society, but then afterwards you can still pass policies that somehow meaningful despite not being aimed at improving society(?) and the latter isn’t actually governing(?).
None of this makes any sense. If there are “various means” available to pass policy, then why would it not be “actually governing” to use those means? And if the policies passed through those means aren’t aimed at improving society, then in what way are they meaningful? And for that matter, why can you only enact policy that has nothing to do with improving society during that time period?
Honestly, I’d just suggest scrapping this point entirely and finding a different way of phrasing what you’re trying to say.
No thanks. I’m done trying to explain it. I’m curious if others are having as much trouble understanding or if you’re being intentionally obtuse, but there is no other way to say what I’m trying to say. It’s complex and nuanced. There is no simple or concise way to say it. So I’m done here. Have a good one 👋
I started out more confrontational tbh but then just got confused by what you meant and have been legitimately trying to figure it out, I’m not being intentionally obtuse.
It seems pretty straightforward to me. If you’re enacting policy that improves society through whatever means available, then you’re actually governing, if you’re not doing that then you’re not. Very simple and straightforward terminology. Whatever distinction you’re drawing seems meaningless and arbitrary to me.
See? It’s as I expected. I may not have the patience to deal with you, but I knew others would. And it didn’t end well for you, bud.
I’m glad that I have you as a totally fair and neutral arbitrator on whether or not I “got wrecked.” You definitely hadn’t already decided that would be your conclusion before seeing any of it.
Oh it absolutely was. I’ve dealt with you before. I knew exactly how this would go down. You’re just that predictable.