and welcome to DU!

Thanks for your input. I often think about politics as philosophy. You seem to equate your philosophy of human nature to political success and it very well may have merit. I personally feel that talking without thinking is useless; it's more manipulative than productive which certainly mirrors present politics. I would have to ask the question: What is success in politics? Is being a talker the same as being a communicator? Is being a thinker the same as being wise? What is the outcome of political thought without insight or knowledge? With those questions in mind, can a politician be of any real usefulness to the public good without insight, knowledge, experience, empathy and talent as a communicator? I don't think so unless success as a politician has nothing to do with the public good.

Good night, it's late here!

I need to thank you on more than one point. I realize, what I posted that night was a little crude and not very sophisticated. I had promised to post and I did. But I struggled and could not really focus on what to write. Like you said, it got late. I let the thread ferment for a while longer, but no more replies. Thank you for your input.

Responding to your post, after thinking about what I wanted to say is this: The politicians that I hear about are the ones that make the news. For the most part, I feel they fit my definition of Talkers, being courted by the press, but for reasons that make me turn to the subject of philosophy. Isn't it true, many philosophers turned to that branch of study being dissatisfied with the status quo, seeking answers and ways of changing the world to their ideals. I'm not a philosopher, but looked at the group somewhat in desperation.

In my post, instead of "Talker" I could have used the term "Populist". That seems to fit a number of people in politics who in the recent past have made the news. Also, I agree with you that talking without thought is useless. Not all politicians are in a talker (populist) category, and even those who I would like to place into it, do think (unfortunately, maybe) when they propose an idea for a resolution or bill. As I hinted at in my post, talkers would come up with proposals based on their past experiences or their upbringing, hence with retroactive thought, without thinking (or even caring about) what effect that proposal may have on the country as a whole or the people who they represent. Thinkers would reason proactively to a conclusion more likely to be realistic in the long run.

Two little stories are simple examples of what I am trying to say. The first is an anecdote I heard or read somewhere, the second is of my own experience.

"During May of a leap year a first grade teacher asks the question 'what do you think the world will be like 50 years from now when you are all grown up?' Johnny answers ' I know only one thing for sure, February will be the longest month.' Teacher: 'What makes you think that?' Johnny: 'Well, a while back you told us that every four years another day is added to February. And this year it has already 29 days.'

Being impressed by the ability of a 5 year old to add and subtract numbers, I decided to test his understanding of numbers. I asked him to add the numbers from 1 to 10. He wrote them down and then added them, coming up with the correct result. Then the teacher in me took over. I said: 'There is a neat way of getting the answer much faster. You add the 1 and the 10. What do you get? 11. Now you add the 2 and the 9. Again, you have 11. Check it, the same is true for 3+8, 4+7 and 5+6. Right? How many of these groups of 11 do you have?' The answer came: 'Five'. I went on: Each group adds up to 11. Adding the five groups, what do you get? The answer came: '55'. I was amazed what five-year old kids already knew. But then I cautioned him, he could only do that when the last number was an even number, because, I told him he needed always a set of two numbers to add. To which he replied 'if the last number is an odd number, I would start with zero.' "

The first story shows what I mean to be retroactive thought. You take a known fact as a premise and apply it to get your conclusion. The second story I would define as proactive thought, to reason from the input (simplified but not even correct, because there is an algebraic equation for any sequence of numbers) that it does not work to how can I make it work. I need another element, but I cannot change the total value of the set.

Why did I become interested in political philosophy? I believe there is room for improvement in how our government functions. Aren't we on a downhill slide, oscillating from one extreme to another? Like a driver alternately hitting the gas pedal and then the brake pedal, it seems wasteful and destructive.

I can easily find fault with our latest tax cut; there is probably little opposition to me saying that, particularly in view of our latest deficit numbers. Would it not be a good idea to tie the corporate tax rate to the number of employees of a company as an incentive to further employment?

But enough for now, and thanks again for your remarks.