Politics

Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them.
Paul Valery (1871 - 1945), Tel Quel 2 (1943)

It’s a wonder anyone understands democracy. It’s no wonder that most people don’t. Where laws come from, how the representatives do anything, the functions of different people, internal politics, external politics, party politics, and politics in general—it’s like speaking a foreign language. Policies (what a certain group thinks about a certain subject) are often confused with politics (the often mysterious reasons things happen the way they do). I don’t claim to understand what’s going on; I am beginning to realize how complicated it all is.

Theoretically simple: There’s a problem. Each group, usually a party, sits down and thinks about what it wants to do about this problem. They write this down, share this with everyone else, and whoever’s solution is most popular wins, and that’s the policy that’s implemented.

Add politics: There’s a problem. Each group, usually a party, sits down and thinks about what it wants to do about this problem. They write this down. They don’t necessarily share this. The group that is in charge either a) promotes its solution as the only and best, or b) pretends there is no problem. The other groups are busy either a) complaining about the group in charge without offering a solution of their own, or b) supporting a different policy by trying to win over the swing people. Sometimes, one group stabs the other in the back just because they can. Usually the opposition criticizes the ruling group just on general principle out of a basic and unwavering belief that whatever the other guy did has to be wrong.

The more you read and observe about this Politics thing, you got to admit that each party is worse than the other. The one that's out always looks the best.
Will Rogers (1879 - 1935), Illiterate Digest (1924), "Breaking into the Writing Game"

Why are there differing policies? Sometimes it stems from a basic difference of opinion: one party thinks the government should solve It (whatever It is) via programs, departments, ministries, funding, whatever; the other thinks that this is not the government’s job. Sometimes it stems from representation of interests: one party was elected by workers who like the government to solve its problems; the other party constituents would rather pay fewer taxes and take care of their own problems.

Sometimes there are principles. Sometimes there are politics: the party decides to support a solution because the people who care about this solution a) contribute money, b) contribute votes, or because the problem looks bad if it goes unsolved.

Politics, n. Strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.
Ambrose Bierce (1842 - 1914), The Devil's Dictionary

This makes politicians look bad. That isn’t my point. Politicians can mean well, they can truly want to solve a problem, but the politics within a party, a governing body, the various departments and ministries, the personal ambitions of specific members, party loyalty (found in parliamentary systems but not in the US so much), constituants, election campaigns and the media all have influence. A politician is someone who can juggle all of these balls.

Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable.
John Kenneth Galbraith (1908 - 2006)

As if the politics and the policies weren’t complicated enough, the wonderful institutions of bureaucracy and protocol manage to muck up whatever wasn’t already hopelessly complicated and obtuse. Bureaucracy are the people who do stuff, the people who make sure the institutions of democracy work as well as the people who actually make these projects and solutions work. There are internal politics involved, but the biggest restriction to what gets done is funding. There’s only so much money, and where it gets spent is not always where it needs to get spent. Powerful people can divert money for powerful friends or special projects, and important but unglamourous projects sometimes get neglected.

When the political columnists say 'Every thinking man' they mean themselves, and when candidates appeal to 'Every intelligent voter' they mean everybody who is going to vote for them.
Franklin P. Adams (1881 - 1960), Nods and Becks (1944)

Protocol decides how things work; how budgets are negotiated, how the speaker time in parliament is distributed, which group gets to talk about their favorite problems/solutions/projects first and for how long. Who gets to say what to whom. In a larger form these protocols can be turned into laws: the rules of administration. These protocol issues determine the limits to which one party can exercise its power, how it may run its campaigns, and similarly for the opposition. Not to mention what one has to do if one wants a law passed.

In politics you must always keep running with the pack. The moment that you falter and they sense that you are injured, the rest will turn on you like wolves.
R. A. Butler (1902 - 1982)

They say that the parliamentary speeches are directed at the windows because no one is listening. To some extent this is true. Party policies are already decided in advance, and in Germany the entire party votes as a block. No one’s opinion will be changed by the speeches given. There is practically no audience: tourist groups, other MPs or representatives, media coverage that will be reduced to soundbytes.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
Lester B. Pearson (1897 - 1972)

The truth is, the speeches are about politics, not policy. It’s obvious there will be a policy disagreement. The speeches allow one to prove oneself within the party, to the other party, to demonstrate one’s verbal skill and mental acuity. They offer a chance to get revenge, score points, and to gain advantage. In Germany, the other MPs are allowed to heckle, question, and criticize—basically yell things at the speakers. How the speaker handles these interruptions affects how they are viewed within the party and by the others. I view it as a snowball fight—each side has a fort, and they lob verbal missiles at one another, small jabs, projectiles in the form of contradictions and snide comments.