What is politics but persuading the public to vote for this and
What is politics but persuading the public to vote for this and support that and endure these for the promise of those?
The words of Gilbert Highet, scholar and teacher, cut to the heart of public life: “What is politics but persuading the public to vote for this and support that and endure these for the promise of those?” In this saying, he lays bare the essence of politics—a craft of persuasion, a dance of promises, and a negotiation between present burdens and future hopes. Politics, he declares, is not pure philosophy nor pure power, but the art of convincing the people to accept today’s struggles for tomorrow’s gain.
The ancients knew this well. In Athens, orators like Pericles stirred the people with visions of glory, asking them to pay taxes, endure wars, and sacrifice comforts in exchange for honor and empire. In Rome, consuls promised land and wealth to secure the loyalty of soldiers. Always the pattern was the same: endure these, for the promise of those. The people gave their sweat and blood, and in return they were offered visions of security, freedom, or prosperity.
Consider the New Deal of Franklin D. Roosevelt. In the depths of the Great Depression, he asked the American people to support sweeping reforms, to endure higher taxes, stricter regulations, and vast government programs, all for the promise of economic recovery and national renewal. Many suffered in the moment, but they bore it because they believed the promise of “those”—jobs, security, dignity—was worth the endurance of “these.” Highet’s words illuminate this eternal pattern: the balance of persuasion and endurance.
His saying also carries a note of skepticism. For promises in politics are not always fulfilled, and what the peop
LQLe Quynh
Highet’s quote brings to light an uncomfortable truth about how politics often works—promises and persuasion as tools to gain public support. It makes me wonder, though, if this is always the case. Can there be politics driven by real action, integrity, and a focus on delivering for the people, not just convincing them to accept compromises? What does it say about the system when the goal is simply to persuade, rather than to genuinely improve lives?
PHPhi Hung
This quote by Gilbert Highet brings a skeptical tone to the way politics operates—focusing on persuasion rather than genuine governance. But is this view too harsh? While it’s true that persuasion is central to politics, could it be that it’s also about shaping policy for the greater good? Can politics not be a blend of persuasion, conviction, and real outcomes that benefit society as a whole, or are we always left with empty promises?
QAQuang Anh
Highet’s perspective on politics being about persuasion and promises seems to highlight the transactional nature of political systems. It makes me wonder, though: if politicians are constantly focused on persuading the public to endure hardship in exchange for promises, how do we ensure that these promises are not empty? Does this quote suggest that voters are always at the mercy of political promises, or can we create a system based on transparency and accountability?
HNHong Nguyen
This quote from Highet feels almost cynical, as it paints politics as nothing more than a game of persuasion and promises. While it’s true that persuasion is a key part of politics, is that all it boils down to? What happens to the deeper values of leadership, service, and genuine change in this view? Can there be a political system where promises are kept and not just used to win votes?
LQLe Quyen
Gilbert Highet’s definition of politics as persuasion is interesting because it reduces political action to a process of convincing the public to accept promises. This makes me wonder: is this really all politics is about? Can politics be more than just a system of persuasion for personal or party gain? Shouldn't it also involve truth, integrity, and a commitment to the common good, rather than just manipulation of public opinion?