In party politics everyone plays chess, those who don’t play tend to be purged by the purity of their intentions.
Time preference. The concept from economics that Hans-Hermann Hoppe popularized among libertarians argues that time preference refers to the way people value present consumption relative to future consumption. Individuals with a higher time preference tend to preferentially value immediate consumption, while those with a lower time preference are willing to wait and save to consume more in the future.
Politicians are playing against time. Their terms are measured not only by the time they can spend in office, but also by the time they have to become popular and win voters who will allow them to stay in power for longer. Therefore, it is common for them to offer measures that solve problems instantly, quickly, easily and, above all, with a very high time preference, proposing to spend a lot to fulfill these promises – it doesn’t matter, the clock is ticking. Therefore, why not propose popular measures even if they are not fair or even in line with reality?
In party politics, we are rarely told the truth, the truth is rational and often unpopular, perhaps for this reason the Socialist Party was king and lord in Portugal while deceiving its voters with generous “offers” full of good intentions. Juggling exercises, taking money from the taxpayer’s pockets by increasing indirect taxes, while maintaining direct taxes and claiming that there was no tax increase. On the other hand, subsidies and “kindness” were spread and promoted the propaganda of the Socialist Party.
In the great time preference of politicians, there is generally no problem in taking measures that increase spending and debt without considering the long-term consequences. Why? The problem is someone else’s, and when we get to someone else’s, the blame will be on the previous one.
It is a mistake to abandon the role of scrutinizer of governments, politicians and parties to adopt a club-like attitude and blind faith in them. In fact, this is the attitude that has perpetuated loyal votes even with poor results in Portugal.
Bastiat, in his most famous work “The Law”, also warned that politicians have a tendency to seek power and influence that serves their own interests, and the interests of those who support them, thus moving away from what Bastiat considers to be the function of government: the protection of natural and property rights; distorting the Law, making it an instrument of coercion to satisfy their support groups.
I believe that immorality is not necessarily what guides the actions of those who decide to get involved in party politics, although human nature often ends up succumbing to the desire for power. Scrutiny and impartiality are the voter’s weapons in judging political action.
In party politics, everyone plays chess. Those who don’t play tend to be purged by the purity of their intentions. This is particularly true if we look at the politicians we admired who decided to leave this environment. What happened to them? How were they treated?
In party politics everyone plays chess, the objective? Checkmate. The pawns?