Well into my early adulthood, I was scared to confront people. A closely related fear was incurring someone’s disappointment. It wasn't so much that I wanted to be liked. Rather, I was generally fine with not being noticed, and I was frightened by the prospect of being
" either (1) to pursue a set of policies the candidate believes in or (2) because it’s the next career step to satisfy their ego or their sense of destiny."
I doubt it is an either/or question. For most, I suspect it is a combination but I'd bet money that (2) is the greater driver because one can have a policy agenda designed to save the world but without (2) there is no chance of becoming a candidate, much less winning election. On the other hand, I have no doubt that someone might run for office based solely on (2) as both Trump and Biden prove, in my opinion. (The argument for Trump is more obvious, perhaps, but Biden has long wanted to reach the pinnacle but is just not a forceful voice for any particular vision. So, while I don't see Biden as being the ego-maniac I see in Trump, he is more driven by ego than not, in my estimation.)
Herein lies our problem for, as you say, it takes (2) to tango (couldn't resist) when there may be lots of folks with good intentions and good ideas who lack the specific type of Will required to enter and endure our electoral process, even at local levels.
Our best hope, I suppose, lies in finding a strong (2) who believes we can do better and who will staff his office with (1) people. Hmm, is this Cs hiring As?
By the way, there is much to be said for a better life balance than many "Wills" enjoy. At age 50 we adopted a grandchild and 7 years later my then-wife and I split up. At age 57, I made a clear choice to work less and be more available to my grandson/son and I have no doubt we both benefited greatly from that time -- immeasurably more than a little more earned income could have meant to either of us. Conversely, there was a time in my 40s when, for a couple of years, I was fully preoccupied as a business owner and I missed out on much and I was happy when that ended, even though the business did not end successfully. Being present in our family's life (and an important part of our own) has an irreplaceable value.
We should work for a living, not live to work and I'd argue that you may well be far better off than those whom you knew who started their own businesses and missed out at home.
That was a really interesting bit of introspection and self-understanding. That in itself is pretty impressive. Would that we could see that kind of self-understanding displayed by political candidates!
Lovely and insightful. It also sent me to Merriam Webster for a history of obtuse and abstruse. MW danced around it but the bottom line is that the common misuse of the two is washing away the differences between them. That’s hard for someone who loves words, but as natural as it is inevitable. No matter the will!
" either (1) to pursue a set of policies the candidate believes in or (2) because it’s the next career step to satisfy their ego or their sense of destiny."
I doubt it is an either/or question. For most, I suspect it is a combination but I'd bet money that (2) is the greater driver because one can have a policy agenda designed to save the world but without (2) there is no chance of becoming a candidate, much less winning election. On the other hand, I have no doubt that someone might run for office based solely on (2) as both Trump and Biden prove, in my opinion. (The argument for Trump is more obvious, perhaps, but Biden has long wanted to reach the pinnacle but is just not a forceful voice for any particular vision. So, while I don't see Biden as being the ego-maniac I see in Trump, he is more driven by ego than not, in my estimation.)
Herein lies our problem for, as you say, it takes (2) to tango (couldn't resist) when there may be lots of folks with good intentions and good ideas who lack the specific type of Will required to enter and endure our electoral process, even at local levels.
Our best hope, I suppose, lies in finding a strong (2) who believes we can do better and who will staff his office with (1) people. Hmm, is this Cs hiring As?
Agree that it is not an either/or.
By the way, there is much to be said for a better life balance than many "Wills" enjoy. At age 50 we adopted a grandchild and 7 years later my then-wife and I split up. At age 57, I made a clear choice to work less and be more available to my grandson/son and I have no doubt we both benefited greatly from that time -- immeasurably more than a little more earned income could have meant to either of us. Conversely, there was a time in my 40s when, for a couple of years, I was fully preoccupied as a business owner and I missed out on much and I was happy when that ended, even though the business did not end successfully. Being present in our family's life (and an important part of our own) has an irreplaceable value.
We should work for a living, not live to work and I'd argue that you may well be far better off than those whom you knew who started their own businesses and missed out at home.
That was a really interesting bit of introspection and self-understanding. That in itself is pretty impressive. Would that we could see that kind of self-understanding displayed by political candidates!
Thanks Tom!
Lovely and insightful. It also sent me to Merriam Webster for a history of obtuse and abstruse. MW danced around it but the bottom line is that the common misuse of the two is washing away the differences between them. That’s hard for someone who loves words, but as natural as it is inevitable. No matter the will!
This discussion of will and confidence was very insightful and made me think about the Dunning Kruger effect (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect)
Where people of low ability tend to be overconfident and those of high ability tend to be less confident. I wonder how age plays into the effect.
A battle, perhaps, between confirmation bias and evidence to the contrary as one gets older. In either direction.