Can someone explain to me the idea of people desiring political power...

Some people simply desire to be on the top of the dominance-hierarchy.

Now, you can try to account for the evolutionarily speaking, by for example arguing that it makes you more successful in propagating your children(which it does, arguably), but also that it ensures a legacy that can exist for a very long time over several generations.

I mean, George H.W Bush was president, and then his son became president, and the next generation of Bushes will either be upper-class people, or there will be another president in that family.

I think the desire to be on top, is associated with the desire to propagate the success of your lineage the longest period of time.

I might be wrong, that's my speculation.

good point never thought about that

Have you ever had power? It feels very nice to be important and listened to.

one time i was going out with a girl and she tried to end the relationship. 'i think we should stop seeing each other' was what she said. i replied by saying 'i agree' as i thought it would be the best thing to say given the circumstances.
the fact i said agree made her decide she wanted to keep going out. the relationship ended shortly after.

so no.although that was the closest i have got. i thought i was clever at most

Imagine being able to have whatever you wanted happen. Not completely of course, but if I wanted to make all these uneducated little shits out there today into better people and I was Frank Underwood, I assume I could push through an education bill making kids need to REALLY appreciate Baroque music and Frank Zappa before they graduate, and basically I'd get to shape a generation.

Not only that, but by being a cog in the most powerful machine on earth, you basically ensure your name will always be in the history books. A thousand years from now, humans will still be killing other humans using the images of Napoleon or Ceaser or the Roman empire or whatever.

Besides, power is pretty cool. While money is a form of power, political power is a lot more impressive.

>good point never thought about that

I will say though, since you used Frank Underwood as an example; he and his wife are obviously 2 sociopaths(in my opinion), who have opted out of doing anything in their life that can obstruct their path to power, such as having children, so it's obvious that they represent perhaps a form of Jungian Shadow; the kind of person that shouldn't have power at all.

What is history
What is eternity
We all want to be remembered

'Achieving means' is reference to a goal. For example, a property developer wants zones changed so they speak to government (now not just anyone can organise a meeting with government, this is where money comes to play in the form of political donations, lobbying). Developer doesn't care who's in charge, just that they're allowed to make a shiny new high rise that they can then sell to rich chinese people.

Sorry, I digress. Because the government representative is needed, they are important. They have been given their position in the party not necessarily out of merit, but more likely because they're a good bloke, or friends with union people/developers, like in our example. The government bloke and the developer go out for a nice dinner (here's the pivotal point) and hash things out in an environment of self importance, surrounded by all the best that money can buy. A deal is struck, progress has been made, the government man goes home to tell his fellow party members and mates and family and girlfriend about what a boss dawg he is. Blow jobs ensue.

Does that kind of answer your question? Sorry...not very direct. I guess the short answer is that it's a wank. They do it because they want to feel like big men doing important things.

Anyway, I got into that line of work because my parents are migrants and threatened to disown me unless I got a good job. After I finished Uni I realised I was too old and lacked the connections to join a political party, so became a suit goon instead. Couldn't hack it because you can take a boy out of the western suburbs, but you can't take the western suburbs out of the boy. Also you can't drop the c bomb at corporate dinners apperently.

I should also add that politicians don't actually do anything. Like passing a bill, okay, thats basically the job of your lackies, who write the policy and take the majority of input on said policy from lobby and interest groups. If it goes through, blow jobs. If it doesnt, blame somebody else.

it's just practice. anyone who's got an amount of power that isn't of great significance will find they don't really have it unless they're part of some play for endgame, because those who are playing will be happy to step on it if it isn't used the way they want.

to really have control of this tiny bit of power that was important to you you end up having to have some kind of majority position in the whole system, but then you find all the other people can still group up to force you to make stupid choices. so you take the offensive and centralize before they really get to it.

that leads to learning they're being motivated to start that shit by external factors. some badly managed hole outside your borders is leaking its problems onto your turf, so you need to deal with it or accounting for their bullshit is gonna slow you down forever...

tl;dr if you don't fix all the world's problems they'll come to you. it's not really possible to do that but the alternative is just not dealing with them until they fuck you up. happiness was never an option.

of course there's also the people who fight for things, win, and realize that was the last thing they wanted. sometimes they keep going because letting up seems like an even stupider option. they don't really "desire" power, though, it's just the routine they find themselves in.

Nigga that lobbying system is fucked up

How else would one effectively affect political change? Are you telling me you've never had a desire for political change? How could one lay claim to humanity and not understand that most basic desire - the one to change the world?

To create real change, you need real power, and the only legitimate forms of power within the system are political, financial, and military, and of the last two, one purchases the first, and the other supports it. (I suppose there's fame as well, but it too, is only useful towards change inasmuch as it can be used to affect political power.)

There's plenty of altruistic folks within the political system who, in some cases naively, believe they can change the system by working within it. There's at least one for every psychopath who is out for power for power's sake, though the system itself certainly favors power hungry and ruthless, and over time, turns idealists into such monsters, as they increasingly discover that the only path towards their youthful ideal, is paved with its blood. It's thus quite easy, and indeed, most common, to lose sight of one's personal goals and be swallowed up by the age-old tribalism of red vs. blue, or whatever the competing colors of the age maybe.

But to say you don't understand it, is to say you don't understand the desire for change itself, which seems, unlikely, of any being capable of making a post.

I dont intend to give you eny shit user but it is absolutely beyond me how enyone cant see lobbying as basicly legalized institutionalised bribery.

I need political power to save the western civilization and purge all the jews

Honestly, you're not going to be very popular if you tell your political party that you want to bring about change if voted in. You're also probably not going to receive much money to run your campaign.

Not much different than addictions to drugs, gambling, porn, etc. Power is addictive.

>cunning, baffling, powerful

>parroting Jordan Peterson

Just link the user to his fucking lectures.

>Former lobbyist

ohh I'm laffin

Some people are control freaks and want to be in the position to be in power, so that they can lead their life the way they want to. There are others who believe people are not living their life correctly and thus want those people to change to your will. They are the psychopaths.

Dunno... A platform of change worked pretty damned well for the last president and the most recent president elect.

Right but Obama wasn't really drastic anti-neolib. And T-dawg was wealthy enough that he didn't need political donations from the usual suspects.

Power is security, and it feels good to exercise that over others. Attention and love of the people when you do something good is a nice bonus. And for the lucky, a long legacy can feel better than having children.

Its fucked up, and we're better without it. But I love watching it.

I have this desire for several reasons:

1: I want power for its own sake. I also want to directly influence current events more than any other living person.

2: I want recognition and acclaim, and for the entire world to realize that I am at the apex of society.

3: I want a noteworthy legacy, and for my name to be remembered forever in history.

4: You raised an interesting point about feeling inadequate. That's definitely a part of it for me. I was never really bullied or made to feel less than, but no one ever gave me the acknowledgement I feel I deserve. There's something completely intoxicating about the notion of leaving your mark on the world, especially as a member of an elite club that shapes world events forever.

Also, I read about the great men of history and want my name to be among their ranks. I fantasize about biographies being written about me. I don't know if this classifies me as abnormal or overly narcissistic and sociopathic. I'm intent on achieving great political power. I have a plan and a timeline which lead me to the Presidency.

>he didn't need political donations from the usual suspects

Oh please, he got hundreds of millions of dollars. It just seemed like he didn't get much because Hillary's fundraising was completely insane, pretty sure she got over a billion dollars.

Personally I desire political power because I want to implement certain policies and make a positive change. Though I'm sure recognition plays into it, probably the wish to get a proverbial pat on the head and for everyone to recognize that I did a good job.

Obama, nonetheless, campaigned for change, while all his opponents campaigned for the establishment.

Hillary outspent Trump three times over, but she lost, because she campaigned for more of the same, while he campaigned for change.

Even going back to Bush Jr. vs. Gore. Fresh change, vs. another four to eight years of the same. Really, the only non-incumbent president in the past half-century that won a campaign on more of the same was Bush Sr - and even then, his opponent was advocating returning to Carter's ways. (Plus, no one wanted to sit through 4-8 years of Du-cock-is jokes.)

Now, given that even Trump is appointing more of the usual lobbyist and insiders to the executive branch and its regulatory arms, it seems that he, like so many others before him, probably campaigned on change while not actually intending to implement much of any, and we're probably going to see another 4-8 years of neo-liberal Reagan/Clinton/Bush policies. Nonetheless, not only can you get elected on a platform of change, historically, it's pretty much the only way to get elected.

And there's plenty of true radicals in lesser positions who really are trying to create change, and are merely stifled by their colleagues, but nonetheless managed to obtain high office. Plenty of Sanders, and Kucinich, and Ron Paul's ilk filtering in and out of the the halls of both houses, and the like. (And in Sanders's case, he technically had more power to implement the sort of change he advocates as Senator, than he would have as president - though I suppose he was hoping to change the dialogue as well.)

>he technically had more power to implement the sort of change he advocates as Senator,
Really? How do you suppose that?

Because the president's power is extremely overrated, particularly in regards to the sort of changes Bernie advocates. A senator on committee has considerably more power to institute changes and create laws than the president does. Even if the president can ultimately cock-block the legislative branch, and such a senator has his own cock-blocking powers to use in turn.

The main advantage the president has is over trade negotiations (which the legislative can still block), and on setting the overall tone of the administration. He technically has more power when it comes to foreign policy and war, but even there, while he holds the stamp of temporary approval, such decisions aren't made by a single individual. The president's office is, first and foremost, a PR position.

It's too late, Jeb.

Follow your dreams.

Power = sex

Everything we do as males is designed to be more desirable and impregnate more women. Power is sex, money is sex and better looks are sex. Everything up to and including art and politics serves this purpose.

I don't really know about any of the other posters and what they've said in this thread, but I've often desired "power" because of a strong compulsion to optimise things --although, I've also sometimes desired power as a reaction to the fear of others having malevolent intent towards me, particularly on certain occasions in my life where I've gotten too caught up in the social sphere and worldliness.

But yeah, "optimisation" is what predominantly fascinates me as regards the potential for power. Improving things and making them as functional and ideal as I can has always been more engaging to me than anything else in life, to the extent that I would describe it as my only real passion.

I imagine this isn't a particularly uncommon view among many individuals that work predominantly in trying to fix and improve systems, without the expectation of much praise or fame. I know I would find it a much more agreeable arrangement to be a member of some kind of shadow government that runs things behind the scenes than any kind of leader of a world power or leading corporation.

jesus christ this painting is fucking terrifying