“While “politics” refers to the totality of interrelationships in a particular area of life involving power, manipulation, tactics and strategy…”

No it doesn’t. It refers specifically to the power etc. in relation to the government of a state. A family dispute, or a dispute between co-workers, or lovers, or other private interrelationships, may involve power, manipulation, tactics and strategy, but that doesn’t make them political.

“There’s no doubt that some politicians are insincere, sometimes very insincere, some of the time. But it’s a big worry if, led by our media, we come to the nihilistic conclusion that all of them are hypocritical and inauthentic all of the time.”

The question is not whether the conclusion is nihilistic, it’s whether it’s accurate.

However I don’t think the problem is politicians being hypocritical and inauthentic all of the time. They may honestly and authentically believe in ideas which are nevertheless still misguided, wasteful, or destructive.

The problem is not so much that politicans are hypocritical, it’s that the democratic process by its very nature tends to select for unprincipled people, whose only standard of morality is whether a sufficient margin of voters might return them to office. For such people, the only question is expedience because that’s all it can be. If standing on principle costs you your office, obviously politicians who do it won’t be much in evidence, which is the situation we have now. If practising what you preach is expedient, they will do that, and if not, not. Thus the process tends to result in our being ruled by the biggest flim-flams, the persons of worst moral character in the whole community. The habitual immoralists will be, and are, the most attracted to the process because they will have least sense that immoral behaviour is wrong and shameful and should be refrained-from.

There is no “argument about whether or not Kevin Rudd is sincere in his apologies”. Of course he is not sincere!

This doesn’t make him unusual among the political classes. He is just worse at covering up than most of them.

Of course Kev is sorry.

He is remorseful in the same way that all crooks are at sentencing. Sorry they got caught.

If he was really sorry, he would take stronger action. He only moved against Garrett when it became clear that keeping him on was political suicide.

He is also "sorry" about not delivering on some promises and deliberately breaking others. Or translated "Sorry I scr*wed you over, but please vote for me again as I "promise" that next time I really really will keep my word"

I wonder if Jenny has ever listened to a Rudd speach, without her rose coloured hearing aid.

Anyone who does can not help realising that here we have a concoction.

The Rudd presented to the public is as much a contrived character as any character in the blockbuster Avater. The whole man is a lie.

We have heard that wet hair, & aircraft can make it difficult for him to maintain character, but it may be getting harder.

Anyone actually listening to him, in his sound grabs, on his new red herring, the hospital system, will have noticed a distinct sneer in his voice, aimed at his state colleagues/adversaries. He is still playing the usual contrived Mr nice guy, but has slipped enough for the real domineering bully to shine through.

Last time I saw this from a polly was when that thug Beattie ripped the local government fabric apart, when they resisted his demands. Beattie wanted to rip the rate payer funded water infrastructure off the councils. Rudd wants to rip the GST off the states. Sound familar?

Both wanted to FIX something, to hide their other failures, but wanted to do it with someone else' money.

It was interesting to listen to him yesterday. He lost his place, in his pre written, "off the cuff" talk with some ABC type. It was fun to hear him fluster. Now we know why no ABC type ever interrupts him. They wouldn,t dare make him look so silly.

It's a pity. His copy of the old QLD hospital board system would be a huge improvement. He should know, he saw Goss get rid of them, replaced by the usless bureaucrats we have now. Granted the boards were full of national party members, & could be much improved, but if he really wanted to fix the mess, it would not be with a commonwealth grab for money.

Shadow, Hasbeen....and the other lot are contrite and honourable, not prone to playing to the media?

Hand on heart Hasbeen do you really believe the LNP are any better, more competent?

Peter
Broadly speaking I agree with most of what you say if not quite to the same degree.
To me the issue is that it is difficult to tell when a pollie is telling the truth or a porky. You are right it's easier if not safe to assume that they're always lying that way the disappointment when they're caught out, is less. Mind you some of their peccadilloes (?) are a bit much.

Under aged girls
Peadophilia
Sniffing staff seats
Kitchen Cabinets
Taking bribes from lobyists
Mass incompetence
misleading the public
moral stasis
talking in tongues
hubris
desertion of wives and disabled children
Fraud
affairs
Cross dressing.
Cronyism
Abuse of allowances
junkets to meet potential wife
Religious nutterism
Conflict of interests
Hell, you're right they are an unprincipled lot.

Keven Rudd, who:
-recruited celebrities to get popularity- just to have them act as seat-warmers (Maxine) or yes-men (Garret);
-Gives large wads of taxpayer's cash to the coal industry whilst pushing forward an ETS scheme
-Implementing an internet filter with a hidden blacklist.

But of COURSE he's sincere!

In my opinion, the media is perfectly fair in tarring and feathering any politician for stuff-ups- sadly it focuses too much on pettier scandals and less on dubious reception and distribution of (public) money and assets.