In recent posts we’ve noted what politics currently isn’t: neither civil nor balanced.
Chris Dillow also notes here what politics isn’t, through the eyes of people who are interested in what passes for politics:
Most of those who claim to take an interest in it are not really interested in how to govern the public sphere: if they were there’d much more interest in the social sciences. Instead, they’re mere spectators in a wrestling match who are booing baddies and cheering goodies.
I cheered – well, sighed – reading this.
This begs the question: what is politics?
We’ll need to go back to Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes and Locke to get started on this. At least, though, we’re asking the right question.
arbitrary constant 
One thought on “What politics isn’t”