I hate politics and what are considered their appropriate
I hate politics and what are considered their appropriate measures. I hate notoriety, public meetings, public speeches, caucuses and everything that I know of which is apparently the necessary incident of politics - except doing public work to the best of my ability.
The words of John Abbott — “I hate politics and what are considered their appropriate measures… except doing public work to the best of my ability.” — resound as the confession of a reluctant statesman. He lays bare the truth that the trappings of politics — the speeches, the meetings, the endless wrangling for favor — are often hollow rituals, far removed from the true purpose of governance. What he despises is not public work, but the theater that surrounds it, the vanity and noise that obscure the simple duty of service.
The meaning of this saying lies in the distinction between politics as performance and politics as responsibility. Abbott declares that the former sickens him, while the latter alone gives him purpose. The caucuses, the posturing, the chase for notoriety — these are the shadows of ambition. But the quiet labor of public work, of serving the people with diligence and humility, this he cherished. His words remind us that the highest leaders are not always those who seek the stage, but often those who endure it for the sake of duty.
History bears witness to this pattern. Consider George Washington, who at the end of the American Revolution longed only to return to his farm, yet was compelled to accept the presidency for the sake of his fledgling nation. Like Abbott, Washington despised the petty quarrels of politics, but he accepted them in order to perform the public work required. Both men remind us that the best leaders are not always those who hunger for power, but those who shoulder it reluctantly, guided by obligation rather than ambition.
The origin of Abbott’s words lies in his own life as Canada’s third Prime Minister, a man who never desired high office and who once said he was “not a politician by choice.” He accepted leadership only because the times demanded it, and he performed it with the heart of a servant rather than the zeal of an opportunist. In this, his hatred of politics becomes an expression of integrity, a refusal to confuse service with spectacle.
Therefore, O seekers of wisdom, take this teaching into your hearts: politics may clamor with noise and ambition, but true service is quiet, steadfast, and selfless. Do not be deceived by those who love the stage more than the work, for their glory is fleeting. Follow instead the example of Abbott, who, though he hated politics, still labored faithfully in the vineyard of duty. For in the end, the legacy of a leader is not in the speeches delivered or caucuses won, but in the public work done for the good of the people.
MTNguyen Pham Minh Tai
Abbott’s frustration with the public side of politics reminds me of the disillusionment many people feel with modern-day politicians. If someone is truly focused on doing good work, should they have to participate in the media circus? Could a shift toward a more policy-focused, less personality-driven approach make politics feel less toxic? Is there a way to make politics more about service and less about self-promotion?
MTMinhh Tri
This quote makes me question whether the very nature of politics requires too much public exposure for leaders to actually do meaningful work. Do we expect too much visibility from politicians? Would we be better off if they were more focused on solving problems than on meeting the expectations of the media and the public? Is it even possible to stay away from the public spectacle and still be effective in today’s world?
BDNguyen Bao Dang
I understand why Abbott might feel frustrated by the public nature of politics. It seems like the real work gets lost in the noise. But is it possible for politics to function without these public components like speeches and caucuses? If politicians only focused on the work, how would they communicate their efforts to the public? Is there a way to balance the work with the necessary visibility without it becoming a show?
KTKhiem Tran
It’s interesting how Abbott points out that while he hates the political circus, he still values doing the work. This raises an important question: are there politicians today who feel similarly? Is it fair to say that the need for visibility and popularity sometimes undermines the very work that politicians are supposed to do? Can public service ever be about action without being tied to the public persona?
DTthanh Ngan Dang thi
Reading this quote made me think about the many people who go into politics with the best intentions but end up bogged down by the drama of the system. Is it possible for someone to maintain a focus on doing the work while avoiding the 'necessary incidents' of politics? Could a political system that values action over image ever be created, or is it too ingrained in human nature to resist the spotlight?