What do you want to be a sailor for? There are greater storms in
What do you want to be a sailor for? There are greater storms in politics than you will ever find at sea. Piracy, broadsides, blood on the decks. You will find them all in politics.
The words of David Lloyd George — “There are greater storms in politics than you will ever find at sea. Piracy, broadsides, blood on the decks. You will find them all in politics.” — tear away the veil of glamour from both the sailor’s voyage and the statesman’s craft. He warns that the realm of politics, though draped in ceremony and law, is a battlefield as fierce as any ocean storm. The sea may break a mast or sink a vessel, but politics can break nations, sink reputations, and spill the lifeblood of empires.
To liken politics to piracy and blood on the decks is to declare that beneath its polished surface lies the same ferocity found in combat. The broadsides of parliament are volleys of words, yet they wound as surely as cannon-fire. The betrayals, the sudden attacks, the ruthless plundering of honor and trust — these are the storms that strike not upon waves of water, but upon the fragile vessel of the human spirit. Lloyd George, who himself weathered such tempests in the councils of power, spoke with the authority of a captain who has known both glory and mutiny.
History shows this truth with cruel clarity. In the final days of Julius Caesar, the Roman Senate became a ship of knives, where friends turned assassins. Caesar had conquered seas of armies, yet could not master the deeper storms of politics, which sank him with twenty-three blades upon the deck of the Senate. Here we see that the ocean’s rage pales before the organized fury of men struggling for power.
And yet, these storms of politics are not to be fled from, but to be faced. For just as the sailor who braves the hurricane may guide his ship to safe harbor, so the leader who endures treachery, conflict, and strife may guide his people toward new horizons. Lloyd George himself, steering Britain through the First World War, faced torrents of criticism, intrigue, and opposition. He understood that survival in politics required not only courage, but also cunning, patience, and the will to hold the wheel steady in tempests that never seemed to end.
Therefore, O seekers of wisdom, remember this teaching: do not be deceived by the calm surface of political life. Within it dwell the waves of ambition, the thunder of rivalry, the hidden reefs of betrayal. To enter its waters is to become both warrior and sailor, to brace oneself for storms that will test the marrow of the soul. But for those who endure, the reward is no small prize — the chance to chart the course of nations and steer the fate of generations.
TTle thanh tam
Lloyd George’s comparison of politics to a stormy sea certainly captures the volatility of political life. But is there room for optimism in such a view? Can politics move beyond the ‘piracy’ and ‘broadsides’ to focus on collaboration and solutions? Or is it just that the nature of politics requires these intense struggles? Should we embrace the conflict as part of the system, or work to change it and make political discourse less combative?
NHNgoc han
I can’t help but wonder—if politics really is this chaotic, why would anyone choose to engage in it? Are there moments when the ‘storms’ of politics become too overwhelming? Or is there a type of individual who thrives in this environment? How do we balance the inherent conflict in politics with the need for cooperation and progress? Can the ‘piracy’ and ‘blood on the decks’ ever give way to more peaceful, productive political strategies?
VDvo danh
The imagery Lloyd George uses to describe politics as a stormy sea with piracy and bloodshed is certainly dramatic. But does it serve to discourage people from entering politics altogether? Does he make it sound too dangerous, even if the political system has its ups and downs? What role does this perception play in people’s reluctance to get involved in politics, especially when it’s so essential to societal change?
TVThao Vuong
Lloyd George’s perspective seems to suggest that politics is inherently violent and full of conflict. While that’s undoubtedly true at times, isn’t it possible for politics to be more about negotiation, compromise, and finding solutions rather than fighting battles? Is it fair to say that the political system is always this hostile, or does this view only apply to certain contexts or periods in history?
THTa Huong
This quote makes me think—why would anyone choose politics when it's described as a battlefield with 'blood on the decks'? But maybe Lloyd George is right about the intensity and conflict inherent in political life. Does this mean that political leaders must constantly prepare for warfare, or is there room for cooperation and peaceful solutions? Could politics evolve to become less about ‘broadsides’ and more about finding common ground?