What makes the difference?

What makes the difference?

What makes one politician more electable than any other?

If cold science and logic is applied to politics, or anything else involving humans; there is very little difference between those who are popular and the rest. Yet in politics this “very little difference” is what determines who, in a democracy, we are governed by.

What makes the Rolling stones still considered by many, to be the best rock band performing?-it could be that hint of being beyond acceptable, that suggestion they, despite their age, are still the angry young men who do not care a fuck about rules.

What marks the brilliant fiction writers from the every good? That edge, that difference, that suggestion that the reader does not know what will happen next. A well written novel always appears to be spontaneous, as if the reader is the only person that matters to the writer. It does not ever show the planning and editing that must have occurred.

What makes a good politician different from the average party hack? That sense of commitment, that suggestion they are not there just as a mouthpiece, that flair for making off beat and off message comments. Even Tory ministers (in UK) are more appreciated by the voters if they seem to be fighting against the establishment, that faceless bureaucracy that opposes change. Socialists, because they believe the state (that faceless bureaucracy) should be all powerful and override individuality; will always be associated with the party machine, they can never; how ever radical and revolutionary they claim to be; expect that they will ever be accepted as being on the side of the free person walking their own path. They may have a large and devoted support from activists but to the majority these seem like clones, part of rent a mob; all shouting the same slogans, all apparently mindless in their following of some strict doctrine that allows for no variation. Socialists lack that ill-defined edge and spark, that comes with individuality, that free creative difference.

The presenters of the present ( June 2021) UK top gear TV show; are all very pleasant, all very professional, all appear to enjoy what they are doing BUT they are not as good as the trio made up of Clarkson, Hamster and Captain Slow. Why? because that spark is missing, they lack that slight edge of impending chaos, they do not have that hint of total rebellion which suggests that they do not care what the world thinks. That ability to make the viewer believe they are watching a private conversation that is being recoded with no planning, no designed outcome. This is missing in the latest shows.

What makes a very good film, differ from the average? In a very good film the flow, the acting, the progression of the plot, give the viewer the impression it is all being done for them, the chaos of a film set, the out of sequence scene shooting; is all so well hidden that the viewer is convinced this was one continuous event accidentally filmed. However unlikely; the viewer can believe, for the duration of the show, that this is real.

Recent history has shown that politicians who, viewed rationally, are unlikely leaders of a nation, can get elected. The intellectual ability does not seem an influencing factor, The physical appearance does not have to adhere to some media chosen concept of perfection. The recent successful leaders who won elections in Britain and (one election back,) in USA have not been suave conformists, they are people who have more than a hint of scandal hanging about their personal behaviour. They do not conform to some mythical media ideal. But they were elected. It is almost as if the majority of the electorate reject political correct conformity, or may be they distrust apparent perfection. The professional spin doctors love to generate stories about the faults and failings of rivals but this could be counter productive, since the electorate seems to prefer a flawed human to a perfect but bland, image concious one.

This could be a problem for socialism, since it requires everybody to adhere to a fixed code, both of conduct and even of thought, Socialism requires conformity, everyone devoted to the concept of the greater good. Humans have shown that when educated to find knowledge for themselves, they tend to reject the idea that they, as individuals, are the same as everyone else. They reject the notion that they have to conform to what ever it is that others have accepted.