This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Become a politician to (try to) make the world a better place?
About two years ago I discovered TED, then i spent a year watching all the Talks and getting into many different Conversations about just about everything.
It was clear to me long before I found TED that the world had problems, and every now and then I would come up with a solution to one of these problems.
But the problem or the solution was only ever discussed and shared with my friends, who weren't very influential - and thus no changes came to the world from my thoughts or opinions.
As I watched more and more TED Talks and got into deeper and deeper Conversations I realized that many of the problems I had been pondering were already solved in ingenious ways. But very few were ever implemented on large scale, mostly because of political issues in one way or another.
I tried at first to influence politicians through social media and Emails. I wrote to all kinds of officials about everything that was promising and innovative, about all the cool projects that there were out in the world and urged them to take these great ideas to heart.
Very few replied and it is my conclusion that I was unsuccessful in influencing them strongly enough to achieve the amount of change I was hoping for.
So in December I decided to become one, a local politician in my hometown.
So far I haven't been able to pass any revolutionary laws or systems. But I have managed to make politics in Falkenberg, Sweden a bit more transparent and open, getting them to use social media and tech more and better.
I've managed to help save our local hospital from being moved to another city and I've gathered a handful of good and smart people to form a "visionary group" for our city.
On top of that I've met incredible (and not so incredible) people that have the power to change things. And I've been able to forward my ideas to them, getting feedback and achieving (small) change through this.
It's a start!
When will you start and what will it take?
cst commonsense
So, if you join politics (in the UK) you just help with local issues (that's fine), but you will never influence major change.
(To understand the thinking behind this please see the link at the end).
I am NOT being defeatist and do believe that the system could change - but until we start looking at politics with our eyes open, we shall just maintain the status-quo. And, I am not talking about change through fear or violence, but change from the clear NEED to change - maybe by a new generation becoming aware of their power to change the system peacefully by using new technology along with their purchasing power to lever true change to a new system. Economics and capitalism as run currently will simply, in the not too distant future, not work at all. It shall become absolutely necessary to create massive politic and economic change - as we move away from work for all (the Robots et al) to a different system of sharing out the wealth (created by the Bots) and away from capitalism to 'resourcism'.
So we need sensible planning for a future political process that offers much improved democracy and can actually deliver real change. Please see the following link for (at least) one idea on how this may achieved.
Let's have a sensible, quality debate on potential new politics that could really work.
http://www.commonsensethinking.co.uk/politicalsystems.html
JP
Andres Aullet 10+
Thank you for a very interesting idea. I would make a terrible politician, i confess, but i am glad there are politicians like you trying to change things from within.
It is an uphill battle of course, because the main point is to become a politician and chart a plan to make politicians mostly obsolete in a few decades. I won't be surprised if you find a lot of resistance!
Yes, a transparent voting system would make sense for some things, but beware! we might find ourselves with a population where a majority might want to vote to repel the law of gravity. My point is that that there are limits to what can be achieved through voting.
But noble is indeed the effort to make voting more transparent and more relevant to actual citizens, rather than the cyclical exercise on "feel good" and "feel included" that seems to be nowadays
As for myself, I would work in parallel to your efforts. One of the biggest problems in politics, as stated in some of the responses below, is that money rules. So my focus is instead in devising ways to make money less and less relevant. Yes it's very idealistic. But with a goal of making individuals truly self sufficient, completely independent from money, i could at least chart a path and start giving the first steps. With this, I hope, I would be achieving some of the goals that you seem to have embedded in your question
TED indeed has lots of talent floating around. I think the next step is to leverage that talent and these amazing networking capabilities and start bringing down to earth those ideas one by one, one project at a time
Looking forward to working with you on this
cheers
Jimmy Strobl 30+
It is an uphill battle, I expect to find a lot(!) of resistance.
Yes, there is always the risk of people being mislead but It's a lot harder to mislead a nation then it is a chamber of congress. I agree with Winston Churchill that "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."
It is the best system we've been able to come up with, and there's nothing more to do then have faith in that system and hope that they don't ban gravity.
I too have been working/pondering in ways to make money less relevant, very idealistic indeed, I like that.
Yes, collaborating for a better world.
Cheers!
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Jimmy Strobl 30+
chen xin
Jimmy Strobl 30+
I appreciate the concern but I will stick to being myself, if that doesn't work, so be it.
Casey Christofaris 10+
Jimmy Strobl 30+
redha adnane belarif
Casey Christofaris 10+
Redha,
What idea are you referring to?
redha adnane belarif
redha adnane belarif
Wouter Drucker
People will have to become organised in a non-autoritarian way, using the internet. Governments misinform the public and take away incentive to self-organize.
If I became president I would send everybody home and fire myself.
Robert Winner 50+
Isn't the House of Lords a rather exclusive club. I once read that a Lord could go to jail for murder come out and reclaim his seat ... the only requirement is that he could not be broke. Is that true?
Bob.
Jimmy Strobl 30+
John Smith 30+
I'm sure it is, but you've just managed to pick the only example of such an exclusive system. All other democracies have no such problem with their upper house. In Europe the average parliamentarian comes from the middle classand is still not a millionaire when they leave parliament some 4-10 years later.
"The politicians make the rules governing politicians."
Yeah, but that kinda comes with the territory, who else has the authority?
America's elephant in the room is election financing. All other countries use some kind of public election fund, only in the US does it require millions to get elected to parliament and hundreds of millions to become president. Obviously corporations and billionaires will take advantage of that situation. The last French presidential election cost $22 million, compare that to the >1 billion the American presidential cadidates will have spend (America's population is only 5 times larger than that of France and income levels are similar).
pat gilbert 50+
redha adnane belarif
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Watch the TEDx Talk about Seeclickfix if you wish http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0DsSxVG7VI
redha adnane belarif
Jimmy Strobl 30+
redha adnane belarif
Robert Winner 50+
In the United States this is called the millionaires club (Congress). Laws are passed without even reading them ... and then exempt themselves from the law. We face a fiscial cliff due in Jan 2013. This is the biggest issue in the history of the US and yet not even a issue in the elections debates.
The key to politics in the US is money. You gotta pay to ride the gravey train. Poor people have no chance.
Good luck in your efforts. Bob.
John Smith 30+
Jimmy Strobl 30+
I'm afraid that I'm not very well accustomed with many of your political systems in the U.S.
Feyisayo Anjorin 50+
But I dont believe that the world of tomorrow, thanks to certain political ideology with popular support, would be radically different from today.
It is the same humanity; with our hypocrisy, selfishness, greed and other numerous failings that usually brings the worst out of even the most brilliant ideas and systems.
Yes, we should do the best we can in every position we find ourselves; and we should not give up; and we should not have grand illussions of our ability to change the world.
Jimmy Strobl 30+
However I think that the humanity you speak of have many more traits then the ones you mention.
I might have grand illusions about my ability to change the world, only time will tell.
Casey Christofaris 10+
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Solidus Sharp
Jimmy Strobl 30+
That is precisely what one should do when watching a politician, although one should also think about peoples intents.
And best of luck to you, good sir.
John Smith 30+
Jimmy Strobl 30+
I will not be corrupted, this I feel with the utmost certainty. I have no desires for riches, I am a happier man now, earning much less, then I ever was before. Of course no one is immune to the corruption of mind, but I do make it a habit of never claiming certainty, as Hans Rosling says " I am a probabalist".
Well I've been doing TED Conversations for two years, and educational and transformative as they are. I'm not really sure if how long you've been hanging around Conversations is a good measuring stick for how well crafted your thoughts are, I've seen evidence of it not being so...
I do engage with any person that is willing to debate with reason and mutual respect for opinions. I have expanded my knowledge (and continue to do so) in all the fields you mention and I do have a certain love for science and math.
All of your advice is right along my tracks... If you yourself follow these advises you should surely think about becoming a politician ;-)
Ken brown 30+
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Ken brown 30+
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Fritzie Reisner 100+
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Christopher Melvin
The act of participation can transform our society. Networked and distributed participation could make traditional politics obsolete. It could make traditional religion obsolete. The actual problems of the world need actual solutions. The utility we have in the form of technology allows us the capability transcend politics and government. It gives us the tools to build a sustainable social infrastructure capable of maintaining our cultural and local infrastructure while reducing impact on global resources.
In my mind, there is a definite need for aware politicians to be bold enough to help move government institutions and banks from the centralized systems to distributed systems.
Jimmy Strobl 30+
I fully agree with everything that you say!
I too am really interested in what tech can bring us, I dream of a future where politicians are no longer needed, a future where people govern themselves together.
pat gilbert 50+
Now that you are a politician wouldn't be hard to drop it and move on to something else???
The founders in our country (the U.S.) intended for politicians to be part time, in other word do their duty for a stint and then move on.
I think to really make a change is a gargantuan task that has to be performed one person at a time, if you bring a person up a notch, you are doing good work. This is not glamorous and likely not acknowledged which further makes me question the motives of a politician? "Good work is it's own reward" is not just a platitude. How many politicians really believe this, manifested not through their words but through their actions which genuinely indicated their motivation.
With most of the power being centralized it has become the anathema of the individual, yet the individual is where the rubber meets the road ( where real change is made). Where the individual does well, flourishes, is in a small group as in a family, a church, club, classroom, town council. As this is where an individual can communicate.
Simply put the purpose of government is to create a place where the individual can flourish.It is not about the politician.
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Actually it would be hard to drop everything, but probably not for the reasons you'd expect. It would be hard to do it right now because;
1. I got elected on a 1 year term an if I drop it I'd be abandoning my responsibility.
2. I enjoy it, even though it's often much (unpaid) work and late hours, I feel that I'm making a slight difference and I also get to meet some people who are like me.
3.I'm learning and advancing upwards, and that will give me the power and knowledge to change more for the better.
But on the other hand, I'm not used to staying in one place for too long so I often wish to move on to explore something new. Becoming a politician actually goes against my nature in so many ways.
I am a part time politician, I will move on.
The purpose of government is to create a nation that flourishes together with the rest of the world.
pat gilbert 50+
But I do disagree with your last sentence as it is about the individual. I would urge you to look at that point as it is not a small one.
Jimmy Strobl 30+
About the last part, I think that perhaps we're just expressing the same thing in different ways.
What I mean to say is that: Yes, the individual person is very important indeed... We are all individuals but perhaps that's not the way that people should be thinking about themselves, or at least not putting all emphasis on it as we often do.
It just feels like when people speak of the individual they many times forget about the collective good, trying to grab as much as possible for themselves without regards for their surroundings...
Let me re-phrase and see if I can get it better this time.
The purpose of government is... (I've been sitting here for quite some time now and I'm unable to sum it up here, there are just so many things that a government should have as focus areas.) Perhaps maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering whilst being sustainable. Perhaps the purpose is to channel the peoples wishes.
Perhaps a new Conversation would be in place for this?
pat gilbert 50+
There is a large difference of opinion on this subject. The socialist types basically think from the top down and that we know what is best for someone else.
Myself being a Libertarian and an Ayn Rand type we believe that the individual is the key and that government should be from the bottom up.
The reason for our thinking is that we have enormous respect for the individual and his liberty. While the government that takes care of less fortunate people has the apparency of being kinder it really is not. In many of the state parks here the park rangers are adamant about not feeding the wild animals because they do not want them to become dependent on the campers for food. Not to mention the fact that if you stopped feeding them as they had become accustom they would become irate. Why don't they show the same respect for the individual?
When you talk to individuals you will get different answers but when you talk to a group or as you say the collective you will get the same answer the problem is that their is no collective brain as the collective does not think it reacts. Have you ever tried to reason with a riot?
Everything that has raised the standard of living of mankind has come from the individual it has not come from the collective. Everything that is good has come from an individual it has not come from a group.
We are not going to agree on this. Based on your answers I can see that this is something that you did not consider was a question. My point is that it is a question. Any change that occurs will occur with the individual not the collective.
This is not a small point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc7oZ9yWqO4
Jimmy Strobl 30+
I am (as you may have figured out) a socialist and I completely disagree with the statement that socialists are top-down.
Even though humans are animals we rarely apply the same rules for deer and men so the animal-analogy doesn't do the trick for me. People need a basic safety net that can catch them if they fall.
Do you mean the respect of letting people go homeless and starving, I call that disrespectful, inhumane even?
It's not really that easy to get a job if you're homeless. And if you're starving you'd do anything to get food, including most crimes.
It's really very easy, the state should help people to get back on their feet so that they can continue to contribute and live a happy life. Not punish them for being unsuccessful at life, forcing them of the grid and into crime, which costs a lot more.
I have never tried reasoning with a riot...
Individuals can accomplish much, that is true.
But when I look at mankind's greatest achievements few of them have been accomplished by a single individual, it has been done by people working together to create something that none of them could do alone.
pat gilbert 50+
You understand, the animal analogy was not literal? But I will say that I believe the main difference between animals and humans is spiritual.
You say socialism is not top down, yet you decide what is best for people and make them dependent on the government, that is most assuredly top down. I understand that starving people should be helped but that is not what I'm talking about. Some politicians take this well past a safety net, which is great for them as they buy votes, but subsidizing illegal immigrants (which then attracts more illegal immigrants) for food, housing, medical care, and education and driving indigenous workers out of the work place is not really a safety net. This not only compels generations to be dependent on government, it necessarily raises taxes on the productive. Today in the U.S. half of the population does not pay any federal income taxes. This not only disrespects the low end but the high end of income producers. Of course what ever you reward you get more of which means more people who become dependent on the government and get government transfers (welfare) that doesn't show up as income and who do work under the table or on the black market and less people who want to take the enormous risk of starting a business.
Another aspect of socialism disrespecting humans I will explain in a story. A customer of mine worked in Germany as a mountain guide for a few years and had to decide where he would live the rest of his life Germany or the U.S.. He loved Germany and we both agreed the apprenticing and training is second to none. But in Germany his future children would be channeled in a certain direction from about age 10 on. In the U.S. his children would have the freedom to choose what ever they wanted to do and change their mind if they wanted. This was the main reason he decided to move back to the U.S. He has tried many different business' and succeeded and failed.
You see if you are going to have opportunity..
pat gilbert 50+
This is why the U.S. has been the most successful country in history, which has raised the standard of living of the world more than any other country in history. It has created an culture where people could do just that in other word this culture has been the most alive.
Sadly the perversion of the intangible qualities of this country which attracts high quality people will probably be the demise of this country as it will with many countries like the PIGS, Argentina, etc.
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
George Washington