Logic, Politics and Consequences

This might be old news to some people but others may be disappointed or even disillusioned to hear this.

Part of the definition of politics in Webster’s dictionary is “crafty or unprincipled methods or tactics.”

Let’s look at a political action from a logical and then a political point of view.

Saying that you must produce a valid, legal form of identification before you vote is a logical requirement, carried out in most countries in the world.

The logical reasoning would be that persons from another country or State or entity not entitled to vote in a specific area are thus prohibited from influencing outcomes that they are not eligible to have an impact on.

Logic would for example dictate that American citizens would not be allowed to vote in party elections in England or Russia or other such places, or that foreign tourists or non -Americans are not eligible to vote in American elections.

Politicians on the other hand, may through legislation or the courts determine that it is not necessary to produce a form of identification prior to voting. The politics here would be to swamp the election with people not eligible to be there so as to influence the outcome of a particular area in their favor.

I fully understand both points of view.

Logical reasoning in this case says you have to be fair, and only let those eligible in an area or as part of a legitimate group, cast their vote.

Politics in this case says that the ends justify the means.

Politically the types of action outlined above may produce the desired short term result but can often end up with completely unexpected long term consequences.

Another example of a conflict between logic and politics may be that you are in a war but you announce the date of your withdrawal to the press a year in advance.

Logic says that this emboldens the enemy, and reduces the incentive of your own troops to fight and your allies to support you hereafter.

Politically however, this particular action may help you achieve your specific goal as a politician, whatever that goal may be.

So can politicians be logical?

Politicians justify their actions to themselves and to their interest groups, as being the logical thing to do in the pursuit of their specific objectives.

Many political decisions when viewed in context and as part of a larger picture are inherently illogical but are politically expedient.

Essentially this means that many politicians are either unable or unwilling, to view a decision taken by themselves in a macro sense.

The attitude of “don’t bother me with facts, I’ve already made up my mind “has major consequences.

If you see yourself as being a macro logical person then the saying ”People get the politicians they deserve” should mean that you should investigate with great care those who you elect in any area, because of the potential consequences their decisions may have on the big picture.

The first thing Bernard Kirk tells his clients is that the absolute critical factor in any business or organization is the people.

With seventeen years of operational management, twenty two years of strategy implementation for multiple entrepreneurs, professionals, politicians and high level businesses across the globe, Bernard is an expert in how people affect outcomes.

Having the right people doing the right things in the right job, is usually the difference between mediocrity and greatness for both the individual and the organization. Bernard’s methods of determining what needs to be done by what type of person and how to select and retain those persons has attracted interest on an international basis. Bernard has consulted in the retail, hospitality, manufacturing, medical, recycling professional and academic fields. He lives in Arizona, USA.