Two classes of Politicians, which would you prefer to be?

Post Reply New Topic

You don't even have to imagine yourself as a politician, just imagine that your current favorite activity makes you a public figure of some sort. For whatever reason, you face a stark choice:

You can be admired in the present and despised in the future by History, or

you can be despised in the present but judged admirable in the future by History.

What's it going to be? The earliest you'll be vindicated or condemned is the last year of your life, or even imagine that it's long after you're dead, whatever you prefer.

In my life, I am frequently hated at first, then vindicated.

It feels so good to be vindicated.

A tiny part of me would be arrogant enough to enjoy being right in the long run and rubbing it in people's faces when proven correct.

Also, just being appreciated in the present seems fleeting and not nearly as satisfying as positively affecting policy for generations.

I just wanna be me,
and the chips will fall where they may.

Do you know any politicians that are like that?

For me I can think of Lyndon Johnson and Charles DeGaulle. Maybe Nixon and Trump will also fall into this category.

On the opposite sides Jefferson, Andrew Jackson and Andrew Johnson all come to mind. Reagan might also fall into this category.

The easiest way for me to frame this choice for myself was the choice between hiding a problem and addressing it. We've all faced it as often as we've had hot dinners. Mentioning a problem calls attention to yourself, and that attention can be negative. If it's a problem that has grown large over time, people won't want to hear it like the board of directors of Olympus.

I've tried putting it off. I didn't like it.

I don't give a crock of sh!t what people think of me. Leave me alone!

Actually come to think of it I would like to be admired in the present. The thing about it is when you have support in the present you are more able to create the change you want to.

The Haven is not for political threads.

let us just make it non-polly then, and say there are two classes of people, of which we all belong, but I propose two more classes of people-
*totally anonymous lifelong, or
*publically known but hated always forever, no redemption ever.

I'd be a class of my own choosing faulting any untidy mechanisms which deplete protocol methods or society's wellbeing. I'd probably make politics history and society a revellation. Stand up for the people, encurage fair wages and human rights. A bit hard to decipher when no first lady in the U.S has been elected yet so,maybe a leaf of shared human thought will be brought in from the atlantic over the course of the term, whilst man handling anything that goes pear shaped. Such as a bouquet of topical affairs presiding over which love hate arrangement is going to work out for the future.

All politicians will inevitably tick both boxes.

I feel fairly certain that I put this thread in PPR, and I have no idea how it ended up in the Haven.

I'd be hated, then vindicated.

As a politician, i would (try to) do what needs to be done, popular or not. If that makes me disliked, so be it.
A lot of politicians try too hard to be liked in order to be re-elected instead of making necessary changes that are less popular.

Now, plenty of politicians do bad things, thinking they are right, but that is still the 2nd category (in the poll); they expect to be vindicated later.

For the record, I am imagining myself as a participant in a constitutional democracy, and not as an absolute dictator.

The question takes on a different, horrifying tone to me when I think about a dictator making the choice. Groups of rivals have made such decisions with dreadful results, but nothing like the hell unleashed by individuals or cartels.

I wanna be reviled for all time!

Even if being loved at first for a short time is the price I have to pay for it!

But seriously, I dont think that anyone would pick that option except in jest.