Every politician that I would consider voting for, because I know they have the skills, vision and heart to do the best possible job, they wouldn't actually want the job.
Sad fact is, the fact that someone wants the job or thinks they'll make a difference (nothing caves to corrupting power like idealism!), should automatically exclude them from running.😉
"A grasp of the fundamental problems might reveal that there is an irresolvable tension between science, in its old or its new sense [social-behavioral science], and politics, and that any attempt to resolve the tension is likely to have terrible consequences in the political world; that the political world must be ruled not by science but by prudence., This requires at a minimum the recognition that there will always be a "gap" between theory and practice, and that the recalcitrant or intractable political problems cannot be wholly resolved - at least, not by a government of free men. True, Socrates said that "cities will never have rest from their evils no, nor the human race ... until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy"; but Socrates, who failed even in his attempt to rule his wife, Xanthippe, knew and taught that it is extremely unlikely that the conditions required for the rule of the wise will ever be met. As Leo Strauss has said:
"What is more likely to happen is that an unwise man, appealing to the natural right of wisdom [to rule] and catering to the lowest desires of the many, will persuade the multitude of his right: the prospects for tyranny are brighter than those for rule of the wise. This being the case, the natural right of the wise must be questioned, and the indispensable requirement for wisdom must be qualified by the requirement for consent. The political problem consists in reconciling the requirement for wisdom with the requirement for consent."
Also in the publication is this insight from sixty years ago that speaks to our times:
"How, then, can the "technique of Experimental Jurisprudence" [Behavioral Science-based rule, aka "The Science (TM) of the pandemic] resolve them? Beutel says that when "law as a matter of regular practice enters the field of thought control, as is already the case in some totalitarian states, then the findings of the psychologists as to the working of the mind in reaching subjective choices will be of great use to the jurists."
If future historians come close to telling the true, human story of Covid, it will be in large part because of the heroic work of an anonymous writer known as “Transcriber B” on Substack. My Q & A with this unsung hero explains why she’s doing what she’s doing and identifies some of the most heart-wrenching transcripts she’s preserved for posterity.
What percentage of those who went on to do really bad things can you identify as alcohol or psychoactive drug addicts? I ask because alcoholism causes egomania, which impels the addict to have a need to wield power over others. I know there were many. I'm curious how many you ID'd as a percent of those you knew fairly well who did very bad things.
As to substance abuse question, maybe a little elevated alcohol abuse above societal averages. Social, outgoing personalities is most common to get elected, alcohol is social lubricant for many who aren't naturals. Psychoactives I'd guess a little below or equal to societal averages. Most aren't interested in an inner journey, won't like what they find. And those who's journeys are out-of-body won't stay in politics very long, perspectives shift and politics become too constraining. And the user can end up sounding like an idiot or crazy, hurts ambitions.
It's much more the existing personality that's drawn to it. To put your name on a ballot and have others in your community render judgement on you takes a big enough ego to take rejection in the first place. As a candidate the ego gets built up, all kinds of admirers, accolades, people rally behind you, few besides your opponents say bad things. Even those voting for your opponent will usually be kind to your face. Egos grow. But if you lose then the day after an election every single yard sign you were happy to see becomes a tombstone over the grave of your ambitions and all that egoism that built up inside. It takes a strong sense of self to take the risk and suffer the sting of defeat in stride.
Conversely, if you win the ego grows. Stroke. Stroke. Stroke. And power is seductive. The desire for more grows, dreams of how much more good you want to do if you get more power fill the head. And when the negotiations within start to build the pursuit of all that power to do good eclipses all the bad that pursuit also entails. Rationalize, justify, minimize, become blind to.
Very few intend to do evil. I can't say I met any, though in hindsight maybe some were that conniving. But it's the pursuit of a 'greater good' where doing bad things happens. My experience is one where substance abuse was an inignificant factor.
I'll submit for consideration that those policymakers who become zealots about an issue have emotional trauma around it. Weaknesses in them, their poor character they project on others that require a strong, domineering government authority to fix in others, or those who have had relatives or friends succumb to the weaknesses in their characters are most likely to become zealots. And desirous of authoritarian public policy to 'protect' others for their own good. Drug and alcohol addictions, porn, fraud, abuse, disease, etc. A politician who passionately takes up those issues typically has a personal story about how they or others failed in those areas. And want government to take the role of strict paternalism to save others. A disproportionate number of them lack self-control in those areas and want to be controlled, and to control others they assume also lack self-control. A whole lot of projection. They seek to punish like they wish they had been punished or threatened by to assuage their guilt for having weak character, not controlling themselves.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Please keep my ideas in mind; I'm pretty sure we'll we'll have the opportunity to carry this on in future comments. Just a few things for now: alcoholism causes egomania. So long as the ego is satiated, the alcoholism continues in a controlled fashion, where hardly anyone has a clue. It's often said 95% of alcoholics are "functional" for 95% of their drinking careers, which isn't far off the mark so long as they pretty much stick to just the one drug. It's when their ego is shattered that they often become obvious drunks.
I wrote a piece long ago in which I discussed politicians: the top story of issue # 57 of my now-defunct addiction report at https://preventragedy.com/pages/TAR/057.aug10.html , in which I discussed Steve Waldman's timeless 1987 article, "Governing Under the Influence." Because alcoholism is so often hidden (and, now, pills too), I think it has a much greater effect on our governance than nearly anyone suspects. And it shows.
To be sure there were a number of politicians who were functional alcoholics I met and worked with. And a few I could even smell the alcohol oozing out of their skin at 8:30 am on a daily basis, hitting the sauce in their offices during the day, between hearings, most often closeted. The stink and glazed eyes were the giveaways for them. But that was maybe 3 out of 100. The functional's with no tell were more numerous, but I'd still say a small minority. Most were social drinkers, used alcohol as social lubricant. Not a new thing. Not isolated to politics. Centers of power, negotiation, networking, it's not a teetotaler's environment in business, politics being the center of business power.
The question for the effect on our governance of alcohol or other substances isn't if alcohol is present or not: it is. But not excessively elevated over the rest of society. Slightly elevated, but not excessively. My observational experience. The underlying question of your premise is where is that line between social drinking and functional alcoholism? It's fuzzy, despite lots of attempts to define it by a series of questions about the impact on alcohol on someone's life. Still not definitive, there's enough exceptions to not make a single hard line of demarcation rule, like say, a non-functional alcoholic.
And I'd add that over the course of my two-decade career in politics, the environment around drinking changed a lot. As the environment around drinking in business has changed. I'm old enough to remember "liquid lunches" where business deals were made and sealed over big bar tabs. Expensed and reimbursed by the employer. A legitimate cost of doing business. Same for political deals being made and sealed over liquid lunches and dinners. It's not like it was in 1987, or 1997 for that matter. It happens. But more infrequent. At conventions and junkets out of town more than anywhere else. And in closer company, *usually* more discreet. Smart phones have a way of making those under public scrutiny more famous than they necessarily want to be.
I'm not a teetotaler, and the social lubrication of alcohol isn't automatically a bad thing. Many people let their guard down, become more "real" in their interactions, more open to sharing and listening to others. Those who are always on guard, stay in their professional character all of the time aren't fully trusted. Shared vulnerabilities elicit more trust. Until politics or business for that matter is done by people who are all self-actualized and need no social lubrication to be real, genuine and vulnerable alcohol will have a role in power settings. Which means always. The line of excessive social drinking will defy most hard and fast definitions, but you know it when you see it.
I just think that the blaming of alcohol use impacting our governance shifts blame off of human character. It's not one of the seven deadly sins: Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Wrath, Envy, Pride. Those are where our governance today fails. John Adams wrote that “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Our God-less society, God-free governance is the biggest source of evil in our society of all. Blaming alcohol is misdirected within my experience and understanding of man and eternal spiritual teachings about the frailty of man. While it can be a pathway, a door that opens to darkness, it's only one of many that tempt a God-less man.
I would never blame "alcohol" for most of mankind's problems. But I do blame alcoholism.
Which begs the question: how to define it? The commonly accepted def is "Loss of control over use." In my early research, I realized that's a late-stage symptom. I asked, what does it look like in the early stages?
It took a while to redefine in a way that "catches" most every alcoholic using simple behavioral clues, early or late stage. My redefinition is useful, meaning it can be used to spot alcoholism where hardly anyone suspects it. And since the typical spouse does not even suspect alcoholism in the other spouse for nearly a decade of marriage (I found several alcoholism experts early on who used nearly the same words in describing this phenomenon), it's crucial that we suspect it. You never find that which you never suspect.
A few examples: actress Drew Barrymore tells us she drank addictively at age 8; no way did anyone suspect it at that age, yet it is rather common. John Cleese's daughter Camilla drank addictively at age 11; she says her parents didn't even suspect it until she was at least 15. "Full House" child star Jodie Sweetin admits she was a full-on meth addict for at least three of the five years she was married to an LAPD cop, who did not have a clue. And how many biographies have been written about Marx, Churchill, Thomas Paine, Sen. Joseph McCarthy, Stalin and Mussolini that never once mentioned their alcoholism as an explanation for their vile behaviors (Churchill excepted, but he had financial travails his entire life)? Until 1979, no one suspected Hitler of amphetamine addiction; Mao's doctor does not even mention barbiturates until page 108 of his 800-page book. Ann Rule, who became friends with Ted Bundy, never suspected him of alcoholism (but, then, she truly did not have a clue about the importance of the disorder in nearly every subject of nearly every biography she wrote).
I could go on and on (and have in several books), but I'll leave you with a usable, practical definition. Please consider this as you think into your past, and keep in mind our minds need time to digest entirely new ideas. It took me six months to understand the fundamental importance and truth to Austrian economics; three years of the crap we've been going through to realize that the medical innovation, vaccine, that I thought saved a hundred million lives may be responsible for the opposite.
Try this: alcoholism is a genetic disorder that causes the afflicted to biologically process the drug alcohol in such a way as to cause that person to act badly, some of the time.
It's genetic, which is based in ancestry, explaining the relatively low rates of alcoholism in Mediterranean populations and extreme rate in Native American populations.
They process it differently, accounting for the fact alcoholics often don't exhibit the classic signs of inebriation until they reach a .24% BAL and even beyond; you and I are doing a face plant at a .16%. And if you can can "grow" your tolerance, just try drinking addictively. You won't be able to.
And they act badly, some of the time. It's not all the time--but when they act good, it's mostly in the interest of controlling others. Most of the obvious misbehaviors are rooted in alcoholism-fueled egomania which, in turn, results from distortions of perception and memory, in particular "euphoric recall," which causes them to recall everything they do or say through self-favoring lenses. That makes them God-like, does it not? Which, in turn, causes them to abuse others--someone in their life, always, with verbal, psychological or emotional abuse; sometimes, physical; sometimes, financial abuse of others (Ponzi, and I believe Madoff, were alcoholics).
Give it some time and get back to me. dougthorburn @ dougthorburn dot com if you wish.
I didn't know one could use the word 'spiritual' in the same sentence as the word politics. To me they have always been mutually exclusionary. Politics is the art of compromise, morals be damned.
I do not regret the time I spent there. I met a lot of hard working people with honourable intentions. I learned a lot about how government, corporate and nonprofits function and collude. It was an eye opener, that’s for sure.
Nor I my time and energy. I did help do many good things for my community, met good people. Even those who've gone on to do bad things.
That's the hardest part of it all. Seeing so many good people abandon the good missions they have prior knowledge are good. But negotiated away for a "greater good." I know they know better. Or, knew better. And have done bad anyways. The gymanastics their minds must do to justify their negotiations are Olympic medal-worthy.
I worked at a nonprofit years ago. We had representatives from the federal, provincial, municipal and First Nations governments on our Board. The seats were only 2-year terms. Some politicians would be there just to get a participatory “badge” and add the seat to a collection on their resume, others were very hands-on and really wanted to make a difference in our community. It was the same with the corporate/business seats on the Board. Some were there to “fill a quota”, others actually cared about the impact they were having in society.
The issue probably persists in every field/industry/profession, it’s not just politics.
Yes, positions of power. Clergy, doctors, judges, business owners, coaches, etc.
And I'll often say that one needs only look at an HOA board to understand why politics is what it is. Same human. Which is to say all of us. With power. Over small communities or large nations. Same. Just add zeroes to the budgets and guns and prisons as enforcement options.
"The issue probably persists in every field/industry/profession, it’s not just politics."
True. The difference is that politics refers to government, the one entity which feels entitled to use force, up to and including killing you, to enforce its dictates.
Every politician that I would consider voting for, because I know they have the skills, vision and heart to do the best possible job, they wouldn't actually want the job.
Sad fact is, the fact that someone wants the job or thinks they'll make a difference (nothing caves to corrupting power like idealism!), should automatically exclude them from running.😉
Philosophers have said the same thing, at least as far back as Socrates:
Law and Behavioral Science by Walter Berns
Duke University of Law, Winter, 1963
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2953&context=lcp
"A grasp of the fundamental problems might reveal that there is an irresolvable tension between science, in its old or its new sense [social-behavioral science], and politics, and that any attempt to resolve the tension is likely to have terrible consequences in the political world; that the political world must be ruled not by science but by prudence., This requires at a minimum the recognition that there will always be a "gap" between theory and practice, and that the recalcitrant or intractable political problems cannot be wholly resolved - at least, not by a government of free men. True, Socrates said that "cities will never have rest from their evils no, nor the human race ... until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy"; but Socrates, who failed even in his attempt to rule his wife, Xanthippe, knew and taught that it is extremely unlikely that the conditions required for the rule of the wise will ever be met. As Leo Strauss has said:
"What is more likely to happen is that an unwise man, appealing to the natural right of wisdom [to rule] and catering to the lowest desires of the many, will persuade the multitude of his right: the prospects for tyranny are brighter than those for rule of the wise. This being the case, the natural right of the wise must be questioned, and the indispensable requirement for wisdom must be qualified by the requirement for consent. The political problem consists in reconciling the requirement for wisdom with the requirement for consent."
Also in the publication is this insight from sixty years ago that speaks to our times:
"How, then, can the "technique of Experimental Jurisprudence" [Behavioral Science-based rule, aka "The Science (TM) of the pandemic] resolve them? Beutel says that when "law as a matter of regular practice enters the field of thought control, as is already the case in some totalitarian states, then the findings of the psychologists as to the working of the mind in reaching subjective choices will be of great use to the jurists."
If future historians come close to telling the true, human story of Covid, it will be in large part because of the heroic work of an anonymous writer known as “Transcriber B” on Substack. My Q & A with this unsung hero explains why she’s doing what she’s doing and identifies some of the most heart-wrenching transcripts she’s preserved for posterity.
https://billricejr.substack.com/p/q-and-a-with-transcriber-b
What percentage of those who went on to do really bad things can you identify as alcohol or psychoactive drug addicts? I ask because alcoholism causes egomania, which impels the addict to have a need to wield power over others. I know there were many. I'm curious how many you ID'd as a percent of those you knew fairly well who did very bad things.
As to substance abuse question, maybe a little elevated alcohol abuse above societal averages. Social, outgoing personalities is most common to get elected, alcohol is social lubricant for many who aren't naturals. Psychoactives I'd guess a little below or equal to societal averages. Most aren't interested in an inner journey, won't like what they find. And those who's journeys are out-of-body won't stay in politics very long, perspectives shift and politics become too constraining. And the user can end up sounding like an idiot or crazy, hurts ambitions.
It's much more the existing personality that's drawn to it. To put your name on a ballot and have others in your community render judgement on you takes a big enough ego to take rejection in the first place. As a candidate the ego gets built up, all kinds of admirers, accolades, people rally behind you, few besides your opponents say bad things. Even those voting for your opponent will usually be kind to your face. Egos grow. But if you lose then the day after an election every single yard sign you were happy to see becomes a tombstone over the grave of your ambitions and all that egoism that built up inside. It takes a strong sense of self to take the risk and suffer the sting of defeat in stride.
Conversely, if you win the ego grows. Stroke. Stroke. Stroke. And power is seductive. The desire for more grows, dreams of how much more good you want to do if you get more power fill the head. And when the negotiations within start to build the pursuit of all that power to do good eclipses all the bad that pursuit also entails. Rationalize, justify, minimize, become blind to.
Very few intend to do evil. I can't say I met any, though in hindsight maybe some were that conniving. But it's the pursuit of a 'greater good' where doing bad things happens. My experience is one where substance abuse was an inignificant factor.
I'll submit for consideration that those policymakers who become zealots about an issue have emotional trauma around it. Weaknesses in them, their poor character they project on others that require a strong, domineering government authority to fix in others, or those who have had relatives or friends succumb to the weaknesses in their characters are most likely to become zealots. And desirous of authoritarian public policy to 'protect' others for their own good. Drug and alcohol addictions, porn, fraud, abuse, disease, etc. A politician who passionately takes up those issues typically has a personal story about how they or others failed in those areas. And want government to take the role of strict paternalism to save others. A disproportionate number of them lack self-control in those areas and want to be controlled, and to control others they assume also lack self-control. A whole lot of projection. They seek to punish like they wish they had been punished or threatened by to assuage their guilt for having weak character, not controlling themselves.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Please keep my ideas in mind; I'm pretty sure we'll we'll have the opportunity to carry this on in future comments. Just a few things for now: alcoholism causes egomania. So long as the ego is satiated, the alcoholism continues in a controlled fashion, where hardly anyone has a clue. It's often said 95% of alcoholics are "functional" for 95% of their drinking careers, which isn't far off the mark so long as they pretty much stick to just the one drug. It's when their ego is shattered that they often become obvious drunks.
I wrote a piece long ago in which I discussed politicians: the top story of issue # 57 of my now-defunct addiction report at https://preventragedy.com/pages/TAR/057.aug10.html , in which I discussed Steve Waldman's timeless 1987 article, "Governing Under the Influence." Because alcoholism is so often hidden (and, now, pills too), I think it has a much greater effect on our governance than nearly anyone suspects. And it shows.
To be sure there were a number of politicians who were functional alcoholics I met and worked with. And a few I could even smell the alcohol oozing out of their skin at 8:30 am on a daily basis, hitting the sauce in their offices during the day, between hearings, most often closeted. The stink and glazed eyes were the giveaways for them. But that was maybe 3 out of 100. The functional's with no tell were more numerous, but I'd still say a small minority. Most were social drinkers, used alcohol as social lubricant. Not a new thing. Not isolated to politics. Centers of power, negotiation, networking, it's not a teetotaler's environment in business, politics being the center of business power.
The question for the effect on our governance of alcohol or other substances isn't if alcohol is present or not: it is. But not excessively elevated over the rest of society. Slightly elevated, but not excessively. My observational experience. The underlying question of your premise is where is that line between social drinking and functional alcoholism? It's fuzzy, despite lots of attempts to define it by a series of questions about the impact on alcohol on someone's life. Still not definitive, there's enough exceptions to not make a single hard line of demarcation rule, like say, a non-functional alcoholic.
And I'd add that over the course of my two-decade career in politics, the environment around drinking changed a lot. As the environment around drinking in business has changed. I'm old enough to remember "liquid lunches" where business deals were made and sealed over big bar tabs. Expensed and reimbursed by the employer. A legitimate cost of doing business. Same for political deals being made and sealed over liquid lunches and dinners. It's not like it was in 1987, or 1997 for that matter. It happens. But more infrequent. At conventions and junkets out of town more than anywhere else. And in closer company, *usually* more discreet. Smart phones have a way of making those under public scrutiny more famous than they necessarily want to be.
I'm not a teetotaler, and the social lubrication of alcohol isn't automatically a bad thing. Many people let their guard down, become more "real" in their interactions, more open to sharing and listening to others. Those who are always on guard, stay in their professional character all of the time aren't fully trusted. Shared vulnerabilities elicit more trust. Until politics or business for that matter is done by people who are all self-actualized and need no social lubrication to be real, genuine and vulnerable alcohol will have a role in power settings. Which means always. The line of excessive social drinking will defy most hard and fast definitions, but you know it when you see it.
I just think that the blaming of alcohol use impacting our governance shifts blame off of human character. It's not one of the seven deadly sins: Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Wrath, Envy, Pride. Those are where our governance today fails. John Adams wrote that “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Our God-less society, God-free governance is the biggest source of evil in our society of all. Blaming alcohol is misdirected within my experience and understanding of man and eternal spiritual teachings about the frailty of man. While it can be a pathway, a door that opens to darkness, it's only one of many that tempt a God-less man.
I would never blame "alcohol" for most of mankind's problems. But I do blame alcoholism.
Which begs the question: how to define it? The commonly accepted def is "Loss of control over use." In my early research, I realized that's a late-stage symptom. I asked, what does it look like in the early stages?
It took a while to redefine in a way that "catches" most every alcoholic using simple behavioral clues, early or late stage. My redefinition is useful, meaning it can be used to spot alcoholism where hardly anyone suspects it. And since the typical spouse does not even suspect alcoholism in the other spouse for nearly a decade of marriage (I found several alcoholism experts early on who used nearly the same words in describing this phenomenon), it's crucial that we suspect it. You never find that which you never suspect.
A few examples: actress Drew Barrymore tells us she drank addictively at age 8; no way did anyone suspect it at that age, yet it is rather common. John Cleese's daughter Camilla drank addictively at age 11; she says her parents didn't even suspect it until she was at least 15. "Full House" child star Jodie Sweetin admits she was a full-on meth addict for at least three of the five years she was married to an LAPD cop, who did not have a clue. And how many biographies have been written about Marx, Churchill, Thomas Paine, Sen. Joseph McCarthy, Stalin and Mussolini that never once mentioned their alcoholism as an explanation for their vile behaviors (Churchill excepted, but he had financial travails his entire life)? Until 1979, no one suspected Hitler of amphetamine addiction; Mao's doctor does not even mention barbiturates until page 108 of his 800-page book. Ann Rule, who became friends with Ted Bundy, never suspected him of alcoholism (but, then, she truly did not have a clue about the importance of the disorder in nearly every subject of nearly every biography she wrote).
I could go on and on (and have in several books), but I'll leave you with a usable, practical definition. Please consider this as you think into your past, and keep in mind our minds need time to digest entirely new ideas. It took me six months to understand the fundamental importance and truth to Austrian economics; three years of the crap we've been going through to realize that the medical innovation, vaccine, that I thought saved a hundred million lives may be responsible for the opposite.
Try this: alcoholism is a genetic disorder that causes the afflicted to biologically process the drug alcohol in such a way as to cause that person to act badly, some of the time.
It's genetic, which is based in ancestry, explaining the relatively low rates of alcoholism in Mediterranean populations and extreme rate in Native American populations.
They process it differently, accounting for the fact alcoholics often don't exhibit the classic signs of inebriation until they reach a .24% BAL and even beyond; you and I are doing a face plant at a .16%. And if you can can "grow" your tolerance, just try drinking addictively. You won't be able to.
And they act badly, some of the time. It's not all the time--but when they act good, it's mostly in the interest of controlling others. Most of the obvious misbehaviors are rooted in alcoholism-fueled egomania which, in turn, results from distortions of perception and memory, in particular "euphoric recall," which causes them to recall everything they do or say through self-favoring lenses. That makes them God-like, does it not? Which, in turn, causes them to abuse others--someone in their life, always, with verbal, psychological or emotional abuse; sometimes, physical; sometimes, financial abuse of others (Ponzi, and I believe Madoff, were alcoholics).
Give it some time and get back to me. dougthorburn @ dougthorburn dot com if you wish.
I didn't know one could use the word 'spiritual' in the same sentence as the word politics. To me they have always been mutually exclusionary. Politics is the art of compromise, morals be damned.
Right! I did it, though! :)
Congratulations on your escape!
I do not regret the time I spent there. I met a lot of hard working people with honourable intentions. I learned a lot about how government, corporate and nonprofits function and collude. It was an eye opener, that’s for sure.
Nor I my time and energy. I did help do many good things for my community, met good people. Even those who've gone on to do bad things.
That's the hardest part of it all. Seeing so many good people abandon the good missions they have prior knowledge are good. But negotiated away for a "greater good." I know they know better. Or, knew better. And have done bad anyways. The gymanastics their minds must do to justify their negotiations are Olympic medal-worthy.
I worked at a nonprofit years ago. We had representatives from the federal, provincial, municipal and First Nations governments on our Board. The seats were only 2-year terms. Some politicians would be there just to get a participatory “badge” and add the seat to a collection on their resume, others were very hands-on and really wanted to make a difference in our community. It was the same with the corporate/business seats on the Board. Some were there to “fill a quota”, others actually cared about the impact they were having in society.
The issue probably persists in every field/industry/profession, it’s not just politics.
Yes, positions of power. Clergy, doctors, judges, business owners, coaches, etc.
And I'll often say that one needs only look at an HOA board to understand why politics is what it is. Same human. Which is to say all of us. With power. Over small communities or large nations. Same. Just add zeroes to the budgets and guns and prisons as enforcement options.
"The issue probably persists in every field/industry/profession, it’s not just politics."
True. The difference is that politics refers to government, the one entity which feels entitled to use force, up to and including killing you, to enforce its dictates.