In 2026, it is not wise to believe that almost all politicians are honest. It is better to be skeptical of their motivations and hope they are honest enough to do the right thing for the citizens they represent.
The thing is, we tend to hear about the politicians who are ravenous for power, wealth, or recognition. The politicians who aren't (the backbenchers, the ones who run for local office, etc.) we rarely hear about outside of election cycles. While we may not agree with their politics, and may even go as far as disparaging their politics, it doesn't mean they are dishonest. It simply means that our personal values aren't aligned with the values of that politician.
Mate, it wasn't wise to believe that in 1952 either. It's gotten worse, sure, especially at the top, but there are still thousands of "politicians" out there running local board meetings and trying to do their best to keep their communities going.
"Universal" is a massive stretch. What seems more certain is that the many countries where your take is widely shared are less successful than the few countries where it is not.
History would have some objections to what you believe. In defense of your position, however, the last 40 years (at least in the US) have been dominated by the ethos you describe, and the eras and the politicians who were not consumed by greed tend to be less common than the reverse.
Politicians were never honest (never like since Minoan civilization and earlier probably too). You can have an honest, successful politician, as you can have short, successful volleyball player, but that would be an extremely rare case (like Muggsy Bogues).
And that's not really politicians fault, they say what electorate expects, and electorate likes to be cheated.
"Several years ago, when I was ill, Heinlein offered his help, anything he could do, and we had never met; he would phone me to cheer me up and see how I was doing. He wanted to buy me an electric typewriter, God bless him—one of the few true gentlemen in this world. I don't agree with any ideas he puts forth in his writing, but that is neither here nor there. One time when I owed the IRS a lot of money and couldn't raise it, Heinlein loaned the money to me. I think a great deal of him and his wife; I dedicated a book to them in appreciation. Robert Heinlein is a fine-looking man, very impressive and very military in stance; you can tell he has a military background, even to the haircut. He knows I'm a flipped-out freak and still he helped me and my wife when we were in trouble. That is the best in humanity, there; that is who and what I love."
Heinlein wasn't "regressive" but conservative. Your formulation indicates that it is you who might not be progressive but regressive since conservatism - same root as conservatorship - is a legitimate and, especially in good times, logical and effective strategy: keep that which works, change only that which needs changing and be careful not to change it too much or too fast lest you destroy that which worked. Heinlein wrote this in 1952 when the sky wasn't the limit anymore and people were reaching for the "stars" - well, low earth orbit anyway - so he had plenty of backing for his conservatism.
> … keep that which works, change only that which needs changing and be careful not to change it too much or too fast lest you destroy that which worked…
Where “works” is defined as “we’re seeing a lot of very obvious problems but we have faith they’ll work themselves out over time without any intervention”, and the opposite is “we’re seeing a lot of very obvious problems and we think a change is necessary”. Note that the thing under debate has problems and it is not obvious to everyone that it “works”. The conservative says “let’s wait and see” and the reformer says “we must change this now”.
> conservatism is a legitimate and, especially in good times, logical and effective strategy: keep that which works, change only that which needs changing and be careful not to change it too much
Conservatism runs entirely on the ingroup-outgroup divide - "keep that which works for us", and be a force opposing changes sought by people for whom things are not going so well, for whom change is the logical strategy.
Honest conservatives can see past the blind spot of the divide and don't try to present their strategy as a universal ethical good.
That is not what conservativism as political ideology is. Like common, not clearly that and we have multiple years where this was made super clear by conservatives themselves.
Conservativism has nothing to do with "conservatorship". They are not trying to conserve, they are trying to force radical change - sometimes to imaginary past and sometimes toward something completely new. And then violently keep it there regardless of needs of other people.
It’s one of those cases where the label has stayed the same, but the thing it commonly describes has changed so much that the word just has multiple completely different meanings.
There’s the “let’s create National Parks to conserve our natural treasures!” conservatism and there’s the “let’s sell our National Parks to the highest bidder so they can drill for oil!” conservatism. It can mean fiscal responsibility and small government, or it can mean crypto scams and surveillance state.
This happens a lot when describing political positions.
The kind of conservatism that Heinlein embraced supported the idea that world government was necessary to prevent nuclear war. Today, granting more power to the UN or any other international body is ridiculed by most conservatives.
What is called conservatism in many countries today is totally different from what it was while Heinlein was alive.
No. That is reactionary. Conservatism means "government should govern as little as possible to guarantee freedoms, and no less. it should not provide services for a fee (aka tax)."
Conservatism is a vague set of ideas about promoting and maintaining traditional institutions and values. That has various political manifestations, depending on circumstances. In the UK at the turn of the 20th Century for example, it meant heavy protectionist tariffs, as that supported domestic agriculture and the landed aristocracy. Nowadays the UK Conservative party opposes protectionist tariffs and champions free trade, as that maintains the current economic climate.
It never meant that. Conservativism does not care about freedoms, except for cherry picked few freedoms for selected few. It also does not care about small government, it cares about government small in some areas and huge in others.
Conservative voters do not care about freedom, conservative politicians do not care about freedom and and considerable amounts of them are actively opposed to it.
Conservativism is consistently very authoritarian. It is about hierarchies, not freedom.
This is like how Americans of the "conservative" bent use "liberal" as a perjorative, despite holding to liberal (or, occasionally, neoliberal) economic theory. I don't get America at all.
Agreed. "Moon is a Harsh Mistress" is a good example - Heinlein tries quite hard to envisage a society in which women wield more social power, but can't quite relinquish the idea that women wish and deserve to be dominated by powerful men. Worth stating that 1952 was shortly after WW2 i.e. at the start of Heinlein's "middle period" when his worldview shifted dramatically towards more right-wing values (military patriotism, anti-communism, and individual self-reliance).
Exactly my point. Some other commenters got wrapped around themselves thinking I was using regressive as a synonym for conservative, but no, I said what I meant; specific words mean specific things.
Ah, Heinlein. There's not much energy up there, and the energy question is a big one. It's now 2026 and we are still at the point where we can only move a fraction to actual space of what we originally start off with down here. Our fuel is still not anywhere close to what we'd need in terms of energy density and throughput.
The point about politicians is the one I think today most needs. Our public systems don't work when we inherently distrust them. This isn't reason alone to trust, but a bias towards distrust is a pernicious thing for society.
This might be terribly controversial, but I think that even today, even at the highest levels of power, evil is a rare exception, rather than the rule, and we oughta be aware of that.
Someone explain how we’re getting out of this poor situation we’ve created.
There’s a non zero chance we create AGI, it catches up on the latest news, and genuinely believes the solution to save Earth is to subjugate humanity to some degree to prevent humanity from nuking itself.
Of course super low chance, but the AI bubble has somehow started right around when 3 major wars popped up, globalism/immigration problems peaking, and the post-WW2 world order crumbling all within 3-5 years.
I’m not sure I believe this anymore. Maybe around 2 years ago, I think.
But the trajectory, of everything it seems, has completely changed. And I have no optimism left.
The world would need to possibly take up arms against its leadership to recover from where it is right now. The problem is, I know the masses are pacifist and reasonable, and it’s the insane few that are either running everything or have all the money. That dreads me, because just as I wouldn’t take up arms, nobody else will either, so who will stop the descent?
You got voted down, but your sentiment is reasonable. Times are pretty rough right now, politicians seem worse than ever, and people seem to be more ready to hate each other than ever. But the trajectory is controlled by individuals.
Heinlein wrote this in a dark period in history too. The writing of it was resistance against the trajectory of his times. Belief is a choice. Action is a choice. If you don't feel optimism, that's OK to recognize. But then make a choice: to believe something good about your neighbor, to honor something noble about someone you disagree with, and to act as if we each can do better than societal trends seem to indicate.
I believe much of it or want to believe much of it. But the section:
> I believe that almost all politicians are honest ... there are hundreds of politicians, low paid or not paid at all, doing their level best without thanks or glory to make our system work. If this were not true we would never have gotten past the 13 colonies.
I just cannot believe this is even remotely true any more. We seem to have descended into widespread corruption and hypocrisy since his time and that rot is apparent at the very top of the political ladder and seems to inhere downwards. Can’t see how it is going to improve now that it’s been legitimised and the political process completely gutted.
And that's not really politicians fault, they say what electorate expects, and electorate likes to be cheated.
Heinlein was such an odd fellow. Extremely progressive on one hand and extremely regressive on the other, sometimes in the span of a single paragraph.
"Several years ago, when I was ill, Heinlein offered his help, anything he could do, and we had never met; he would phone me to cheer me up and see how I was doing. He wanted to buy me an electric typewriter, God bless him—one of the few true gentlemen in this world. I don't agree with any ideas he puts forth in his writing, but that is neither here nor there. One time when I owed the IRS a lot of money and couldn't raise it, Heinlein loaned the money to me. I think a great deal of him and his wife; I dedicated a book to them in appreciation. Robert Heinlein is a fine-looking man, very impressive and very military in stance; you can tell he has a military background, even to the haircut. He knows I'm a flipped-out freak and still he helped me and my wife when we were in trouble. That is the best in humanity, there; that is who and what I love."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_K._Dick#cite_note-32
Where “works” is defined as “we’re seeing a lot of very obvious problems but we have faith they’ll work themselves out over time without any intervention”, and the opposite is “we’re seeing a lot of very obvious problems and we think a change is necessary”. Note that the thing under debate has problems and it is not obvious to everyone that it “works”. The conservative says “let’s wait and see” and the reformer says “we must change this now”.
This sounds great until you start arguing over what "works" means, who is making the distinction, and and where their interests are.
you forgot the "pretend that everything works" part
Conservatism runs entirely on the ingroup-outgroup divide - "keep that which works for us", and be a force opposing changes sought by people for whom things are not going so well, for whom change is the logical strategy.
Honest conservatives can see past the blind spot of the divide and don't try to present their strategy as a universal ethical good.
Conservativism has nothing to do with "conservatorship". They are not trying to conserve, they are trying to force radical change - sometimes to imaginary past and sometimes toward something completely new. And then violently keep it there regardless of needs of other people.
There’s the “let’s create National Parks to conserve our natural treasures!” conservatism and there’s the “let’s sell our National Parks to the highest bidder so they can drill for oil!” conservatism. It can mean fiscal responsibility and small government, or it can mean crypto scams and surveillance state.
This happens a lot when describing political positions.
What is called conservatism in many countries today is totally different from what it was while Heinlein was alive.
Conservative voters do not care about freedom, conservative politicians do not care about freedom and and considerable amounts of them are actively opposed to it.
Conservativism is consistently very authoritarian. It is about hierarchies, not freedom.
One that stuck with me from the NPR series is "I believe in BBQ"
Give it a try!
But also plenty of places are nothing like Heinlein's hometown so this is far from universal.
This might be terribly controversial, but I think that even today, even at the highest levels of power, evil is a rare exception, rather than the rule, and we oughta be aware of that.
Few paragraphs are taken out to smooth it out.
I have yet to see one that isn't in it for personal gain without regard for the voters.
For the rest of the text, agree completely.
There’s a non zero chance we create AGI, it catches up on the latest news, and genuinely believes the solution to save Earth is to subjugate humanity to some degree to prevent humanity from nuking itself.
Of course super low chance, but the AI bubble has somehow started right around when 3 major wars popped up, globalism/immigration problems peaking, and the post-WW2 world order crumbling all within 3-5 years.
In dark hours I remind myself that humanity must be at least 50.1% good and 49.9% bad. Otherwise we would never have come so far.
But the trajectory, of everything it seems, has completely changed. And I have no optimism left.
The world would need to possibly take up arms against its leadership to recover from where it is right now. The problem is, I know the masses are pacifist and reasonable, and it’s the insane few that are either running everything or have all the money. That dreads me, because just as I wouldn’t take up arms, nobody else will either, so who will stop the descent?
Heinlein wrote this in a dark period in history too. The writing of it was resistance against the trajectory of his times. Belief is a choice. Action is a choice. If you don't feel optimism, that's OK to recognize. But then make a choice: to believe something good about your neighbor, to honor something noble about someone you disagree with, and to act as if we each can do better than societal trends seem to indicate.
> I believe that almost all politicians are honest ... there are hundreds of politicians, low paid or not paid at all, doing their level best without thanks or glory to make our system work. If this were not true we would never have gotten past the 13 colonies.
I just cannot believe this is even remotely true any more. We seem to have descended into widespread corruption and hypocrisy since his time and that rot is apparent at the very top of the political ladder and seems to inhere downwards. Can’t see how it is going to improve now that it’s been legitimised and the political process completely gutted.