<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><title>brockm wrote</title><author_name>brockm (npub1hy…wk7cp)</author_name><author_url>https://yabu.me/npub1hyqrsvl6hle8r5rc9cpshesm0mpcee75tgde4p5lhke5h83dyqqqdwk7cp</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://yabu.me</provider_url><html>Elections are a legitimizing function for political power. That is the role they play. Approaching electoral choices like a purity test and one of cosmic significance to your character, is downstream of some very impoverished understandings of both democracy and society itself. &#xA;&#xA;Ultimately, we have to confront the pragmatic reality that we are ultimately navigating a hierarchy of good. If you resist this notion, you’re actually participating in a fairly dangerous game of reducing the umbrella of interests the political economy will be responsive to, to the most craven — if for no other reason than smaller polities are easier to capture. &#xA;&#xA;For me, character is just as important as policy in thinking about these things, because the question I ask myself about who I want having power, is not one merely about “what policies does this person support?” — but a more subtle one: “who would I feel more comfortable disagreeing with, knowing the conversation can continue, and that our current policy commitments remain, in perpetuity, provisional?”</html></oembed>