Join the new world

With the recent spat of articles I want to explain the difference between action and motivation in politics. If I oppose an action, I do not care what the motivations behind it are. If I oppose a motivation, I could however support the action associated with it.

If Akki put up the proposal because he believes that the Bank needs a huge stash of funds to prop up the MM then I disagree with the size of the funds needed and with his actions, but not his motivations. If he believed that the executive branch should have total control over the budget, then I still disagree with his actions, as well as his motivations.

Now, if I am accused of playing politics by acting to speak out against this, then you could be opposing my actions or my motivations. I doubt anyone disagrees with my actions though, because speaking out against a government official is very important. The right to criticize people openly is not something that is tossed away on a whim.

Thus, you more than likely have an issue with my motivations. Perhaps I am playing politics. Perhaps I am being concerned for the finances of the country. Perhaps my motivation is completely different. In any case you can't change my motivations, you can only judge me on them, and the voters will do so at the ballot box.

But opposing my motivations also does nothing to oppose my actions, which I imagine many agree with. Keep in mind the difference though, because like I said you can't change my motivations, but you can correct other people's actions. That said, our actions have already produced the desired effect as funding has been sent to the Armed Forces. The debate over this will take a much longer time to go away, if people's motivations are any indication.