
Politics and more politics - that's how you work towards the






Listen, O children of the future, for the words of Enrique Peña Nieto hold a profound truth about the nature of politics: "Politics and more politics—that's how you work towards the building of agreements." These words speak to the essence of governance, that complex and often difficult art of creating unity from division, understanding from conflict. To build agreements is not to work in isolation, but through the relentless pursuit of dialogue, negotiation, and compromise. Politics is not a single, momentary act, but a constant, evolving process where the will of many is shaped and refined, where the voices of all are brought together into a single harmony.
In the realm of politics, nothing is ever easily achieved. It is through persistence, through the constant refining of ideas and the unyielding effort to listen, understand, and negotiate that true progress is made. Peña Nieto’s words echo the understanding that agreements are not born from a single moment, but from the steady and often painstaking work of engaging with others, of working through differences, and finding common ground. Politics, therefore, is not a pursuit of victory over others, but the art of bringing people together, of compromising for the greater good.
Consider the example of Nelson Mandela, who, after spending 27 years in prison, worked tirelessly to negotiate peace and build a democratic South Africa. In the early days of the apartheid regime, political compromise seemed impossible, yet Mandela, through patience and dedication, was able to forge the agreements that led to the dismantling of apartheid. Mandela’s approach to politics was not one of brute force, but of careful dialogue, a relentless pursuit of reconciliation. His ability to listen, to engage, and to bring even the fiercest adversaries to the table is the very essence of what Peña Nieto describes: the constant work of politics building agreements that shape the future.
In the ancient world, Pericles of Athens understood the importance of dialogue and politics in shaping the course of a nation. His ability to engage with both the aristocracy and the common people allowed him to lead Athens through a time of tremendous growth and transformation. Pericles saw that leadership in a democracy was not about ruling with force, but about persuading and uniting through the art of compromise and mutual understanding. His political genius lay in his ability to bring people together, to navigate the difficult terrain of conflicting interests, and to shape an agreement that would benefit all.
So, my children, remember the wisdom of Enrique Peña Nieto, for it teaches us that politics is the crucible in which the future is forged. It is through constant engagement, through the endless work of negotiating, listening, and compromising, that we build a world that is not divided by differences, but united by the agreements we create. The road to progress is paved with the persistence of dialogue, the strength to negotiate, and the vision to see beyond our own limited selves to the greater good of all. May you walk this path with the wisdom to know that true leadership is not in the battle for dominance, but in the quiet, constant work of building agreements that bring the world together.
GDGold D.dragon
There’s also an ethical reading: politics can be a craft of empathy, or a cover for patronage. What metrics tell us we’ve practiced the former—policies that survive leadership changes, cross-camp endorsements, and implementation audits that show benefits across regions? Could you share examples where relentless engagement produced durable accords—peace agreements, tax overhauls, or education compacts—and why they stuck? Closed question: do you believe it’s ever wise to exit negotiations early to preserve legitimacy, even if it delays tangible wins?
KWAn Khanh wu
From a citizen’s standpoint, I want potholes filled and bills paid, not endless positioning. Still, every fix requires talking through unions, contractors, environmental rules, and budgets. How do we keep everyone at the table without dragging forever? I’d love a concrete recipe: define red lines early, map the zone of possible agreement, publish a public dashboard of tasks and timelines, and hold weekly, time-boxed check-ins. Question for practitioners: which ritual most reliably breaks stalemates—joint site visits, scenario gaming, or rotating facilitators?
MDMy my Duong
The phrase makes me worry about process for process’s sake—campaigning masquerading as governing. Constant maneuvering can breed burnout, gridlock, and minority veto power. Could we supplement traditional wheeling-and-dealing with civic infrastructure that actually widens consent: citizens’ assemblies, deliberative polling, ranked-choice elections, and cross-party committee chairs? Open question: if a city could fund only one intervention to make agreements more legitimate this year, what should it be—better public consultation, negotiation training for officials, or transparent policy simulations that expose trade-offs before votes?
TQLe thi thao quyen
As a reader, I hear pragmatic realism: durable deals rarely emerge from a single speech but from iterative bargaining, agenda-setting, and coalition maintenance. Yet when does this process slip into performative theater or transactional bartering that hollows out substance? What guardrails keep persistence from becoming cynicism—clear mandates, public scorecards, and sunset clauses tied to measurable outcomes? Closed question: should negotiators pre-commit to nonnegotiables in writing so constituents can track concessions without fearing a bait-and-switch? I’m curious how you balance flexibility with core principles in multi-round talks.