If you oppose a government policy that personally benefits you, you are a hypocrite who bites the hand that feeds you.
If you support the policy that benefits you, you are a greedy narcissist whose loyalty can be bought and sold.
...but neither of these are meaningfully bad things according to post-Machiavellian political thought. Machiavelli dismantled the virtue-centric, moralizing system of “naive” political thought—finding wise, moral and incorruptible men to control society, as argued by Plato or Aquinas—and showed how the strength of a republic is in its internal conflicts and contradictions, how a naked struggle of competing group interests can ultimately lead to dynamism and progress. This is whatmostpeople don’t understand about his legacy, and the great emancipatory power of making self-interest, not moralism the cornerstone of politics.
So yes, in some matters we’re hypocrites, in others we’re greedy narcissists… but society holds more hope for all of its warring factions when these facts are honestly acknowledged rather than wrapped in a cloak of “virtue”-moralism! And pursuit of socioeconomic self-interest has very little cross-over with following moral codes in day-to-day interactions, anyway. (No examples for either Blue or Green, let’s pretend to be civil.)
...
So, (like almost everyone in earlier times), today’s citizens succumb to a vaguely Catholic-flavoured way of seeing society, and end up less politically progressive than a 15th century theorist. Who unjustly acquired the reputation of someone between Marquis de Sade[1] and Emperor Palpatine- not without the help of 19th century clericals and reactionaries.
[1] Early libertarian socialist, proto-feminist and human rights advocate. Never ever got a fair shake either.
...but neither of these are meaningfully bad things according to post-Machiavellian political thought. Machiavelli dismantled the virtue-centric, moralizing system of “naive” political thought—finding wise, moral and incorruptible men to control society, as argued by Plato or Aquinas—and showed how the strength of a republic is in its internal conflicts and contradictions, how a naked struggle of competing group interests can ultimately lead to dynamism and progress. This is what most people don’t understand about his legacy, and the great emancipatory power of making self-interest, not moralism the cornerstone of politics.
So yes, in some matters we’re hypocrites, in others we’re greedy narcissists… but society holds more hope for all of its warring factions when these facts are honestly acknowledged rather than wrapped in a cloak of “virtue”-moralism! And pursuit of socioeconomic self-interest has very little cross-over with following moral codes in day-to-day interactions, anyway. (No examples for either Blue or Green, let’s pretend to be civil.)
...
So, (like almost everyone in earlier times), today’s citizens succumb to a vaguely Catholic-flavoured way of seeing society, and end up less politically progressive than a 15th century theorist. Who unjustly acquired the reputation of someone between Marquis de Sade[1] and Emperor Palpatine- not without the help of 19th century clericals and reactionaries.
[1] Early libertarian socialist, proto-feminist and human rights advocate. Never ever got a fair shake either.