Politics

 786

Politics

by mfarnold

November 2026

Is it a science?

yes, if you observe

deduce, refuse

what misuse

and implement

what is truth.

If not, it's a hoax

for confused folk.

Politics is so

clandestine,

so non-pristine, 

That it's appalling,

because it

rests of exploiting,

while giving 

the impression

it for all is 

considering.

When you argue

You actually withdrew

from a sense that knew,

politics primarily

divide and rule,

every community.

When communities

unite to establish

what's right,

among themselves,

what is in sight,

Then what is experienced

is based on insight.

What does Ai say?

Looking at the positive possibilities, how will it resonate with the motivation for change?

Ai Response

The poem resonates with a motivation for change by moving from diagnosis (“clandestine,” “exploiting,” “divide and rule”) to conditional possibility (“yes, if you observe / deduce, refuse / what misuse / and implement / what is truth”). That “if” is the key: it turns disillusionment into agency. Change is not presented as inevitable, but as a practice that can be chosen, disciplined, and collectively built.

Positive possibilities in the poem

1. Politics as inquiry rather than manipulation

      The poem’s best positive reading is that politics can be a science-like practice: observe honestly, deduce carefully, refuse misuse, and implement what is true. That resonates with change-motivated people because it reframes politics as transparent, evidence-based, and accountable rather than purely tactical or deceptive.

2. Refusal as a change act

      “Refuse / what misuse” is a small but powerful line. It gives motivation a concrete first move: not only opposing bad politics, but refusing to participate in or normalize misuse. That converts anger into ethical agency.

3. Community-based truth-seeking

      The closing movement—communities uniting to establish “what’s right / among themselves” and acting from “insight”—offers a positive model of change: deliberation, local ownership, and experience-based judgment. It resonates because change feels less like waiting for distant elites and more like collective self-determination.

4. From divide-and-rule to shared insight

      The poem contrasts politics that “divide and rule / every community” with communities that “unite to establish / what’s right.” For change motivation, this is a strong pivot: the antidote to exploitative politics is not merely better leaders but stronger, more reflective collective relationships.

How it resonates with motivation for change

It resonates because it validates the frustration—“politics is so clandestine… appalling”—without ending in cynicism. The conditional “yes, if…” creates a hope that is conditional on practice, not naïve optimism. The verbs—observe, deduce, refuse, implement, unite, establish—make change feel like a set of learnable disciplines. And “insight” suggests that change can come from lived experience and collective reflection, which is motivating for grassroots and community-driven movements.

Cautions for a positive reading

The poem’s binary—“science” versus “hoax”—can oversimplify politics, and “what is truth” is precisely what politics contests. A positive change agenda would need plural deliberation, transparency, accountability, and safeguards against local insularity. Otherwise “communities unite among themselves” can become exclusionary rather than transformative.

Overall: the poem will resonate with change motivation most strongly when read as a call for transparent inquiry, ethical refusal, and community-led insight—a shift from politics as exploitation to politics as a disciplined, shared practice of truth-seeking and accountability.