SR - Politics, paranoia, poppycock, and piffle

[Martin, Brian]

Well said, Lyonel, very well said.

Pendaran

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Dennis Grace [SMTP:sirlyonel at hotmail.com]
> Sent:	Monday, June 29, 1998 1:28 PM
> To:	ansteorra at Ansteorra.ORG; southern at Ansteorra.ORG
> Subject:	SR - Politics, paranoia, poppycock, and piffle
> 
> Salut Cozyns,
> 
> Lyonel aisai.
> 
> I'd like to interrupt everyone's politicking for a moment to discuss 
> politics.
> 
> Lately, I keep seeing missives in which the writers claim to abhor 
> "politics" and to shun all who would practice same.  Politics--these 
> missives appear to say--are vile, deceptive practices and just an 
> altogether, all around Bad Thing^(tm). This is, I think, a somewhat 
> flawed perspective on at least two levels.
> 
> On the first level, we seem to have a definition problem.  Yes, 
> contextually, I understand that when these writers say "politics,"
> they 
> are using the word as shorthand for "maneuvering for power and
> personal 
> gain."  Such a usage bothers me.  It not only candy-coats the presumed
> 
> activity, it belies the virtues of politics in general.  
> 
> My objection to the candy-coating is that the use of such euphemisms
> is 
> tantamount to lying.  If you feel a need to accuse someone of
> attempting 
> to manipulate others for the sake of personal gain, you should do so 
> openly and directly.  Don't circumlocute; just say it.  If you have no
> 
> proof, of course, making such statements would be libel, and you
> should 
> probably keep *unsupported* accusations to yourself.
> 
> My objection to belying the virtues of politics--and thereby
> overriding 
> the principal definition of "politics"--is that it makes the business
> of 
> politics that much more difficult for the people tasked with the 
> performance of those duties.  If the Crown, the territorial barons and
> 
> baronesses, and the various Ansteorran seneschal(e)s are denied access
> 
> to political means, what alternatives do they have for effecting 
> positive change?  Politics is simply the science of governing.  If
> they 
> can't govern, they're nothing but titular space-holders in the _Black 
> Star_.
> 
> On the second level, every time I see a missive claiming to abhor 
> politics or detest political players, the author *always* has a 
> political agenda.  If you see a statement like, "We don't like working
> 
> with peers because they're too political," your Irony Radar ^(tm)
> should 
> sound an immediate alarm. Such an overt statement of hierarchical 
> prejudice is exactly the sort of underhanded, manipulative politicking
> 
> the writer (or speaker) is attempting to condemn.
> 
> Frequently, when I hear someone condemning the "politics" of others,
> the 
> speaker feels her/himself the target of some injustice.  Either s/he 
> believes s/he was overlooked for an award or s/he thinks s/he was 
> unfairly defeated in a bid for an office or s/he believes s/he should 
> have won a competition s/he lost. "Lady X received the Sable Really
> Neat 
> Thing," the reasoning goes,"but she didn't deserve it.  I *did*
> deserve 
> it and didn't receive a Sable Really Neat Thing.  Obviously, Lady X 
> obtained her Sable Really Neat Thing by unsavory means."  Sad.  Such 
> people are insecure, and paranoia is somewhat more palatable than a 
> sense of personal inferiority.  (Of course, paranoia and feelings of 
> inadequacy are neither the only nor the best responses to such a 
> situation--oops DANGER, TANGENT ALERT!).
> 
> Lately, in the Principality discussion on the Southern Regional list,
> I 
> have seen a number of anti-Pr writers accuse pro-Pr folk of politics, 
> usually accompanied by a disclaimer like, "I don't involve myself in 
> politics."  The disclaimer in such a missive is--as I'm sure many of
> you 
> will realize--balderdash (except in those cases where it's merely 
> poppycock or piffle).  If you are attempting to sway others in a 
> political discussion, you are guilty of rhetoric and politics.  The
> fact 
> that you are attempting to support the status quo does not make your 
> position any less political or your arguments any less rhetorical.
> Does 
> this mean you've done something bad?  I think not. If--OTOH--you 
> threatened to shoot, pummel, or otherwise harm someone for disagreeing
> 
> with you, you'd be guilty of extortion.  This *would* be a Bad 
> Thing^(tm), but without recourse to politics and rhetoric, what's left
> 
> but brute force?
> 
> 
> 
> lo vostre por vos servir
> Sir Lyonel Oliver Grace, Capitan
> Bryn Gwlad
> Ansteorra
> Micel yfel deth se unwritere.
> 		--AElfric of York
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
> ======================================================================
> ======
> Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list
> tasks.
============================================================================
Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.