From idealism to cynicism: an anatomy of a field of power

For a long time, politics was driven by major structuring ideologies: socialism, liberalism, conservatism, decolonization, the welfare state. These frameworks gave collective meaning, historical direction, and a sense of purpose. Today, those grand narratives have weakened. Politics has become more technical, more focused on communication, and more opportunistic. This shift has profoundly changed the types of people it attracts.

The question deserves to be asked without naïveté: who still chooses a political career today, and why?

1. The end of ideologies, the beginning of careers

When politics stops being a battle of ideas, it becomes a space of power. A space where one can exist, dominate, compensate for failures, or satisfy personal needs. This does not mean that all political ambition is unhealthy, but it does mean that the field now attracts very different profiles, often driven by motivations far removed from the common good.

Broadly speaking, three major categories can be identified.

2. Big egos and predators of power

These are often the most visible figures. They are drawn to politics not to transform society, but to stage themselves, to control, and to endure. Their primary driver is ego: recognition, symbolic domination, and a sense of importance.

They are highly skilled at:

• communication,

• alliance-building,

• neutralizing talent around them.

In their inner circles, competent people become a threat. They think too much, know too much, and work too well. The political predator will therefore wear them down, marginalize them, or crush them—sometimes subtly, sometimes brutally. Loyal mediocrity is preferred over brilliant independence.

Political history is full of figures often analyzed through this lens, from Machiavelli—who described these mechanisms—to contemporary leaders criticized for hollowing out institutions in order to rule without real counterpower.

The political predator does not improve things: he occupies space and prevents others from acting.

3. The “losers” of the modern economy who turn to politics

Another profile, less visible but just as harmful, consists of individuals who never managed to find their place in the real economy. They have not built, innovated, or successfully managed anything. Politics becomes a fallback option, sometimes a shortcut.

Their problem is not only incompetence, but resentment. They know they cannot compete in the fields of work, creation, or performance. So they rely on other weapons:

• rumors,

• disinformation,

• internal betrayal,

• bureaucratic or media sabotage.

These profiles often undermine those who genuinely work for the public good, not because of ideological disagreement, but because others’ competence exposes their own emptiness. Their political activity is essentially defensive and destructive.

They build nothing—but they are very effective at blocking.

4. The rare, sincere actors of the common good

There is, however, a third category—minority but essential: women and men who enter politics with a sincere desire to improve things. They often come from:

• the field,

• civil society,

• concrete professions such as healthcare, education, justice, or the real economy.

Their weakness is not moral, but strategic. They underestimate the symbolic violence of the political arena. They believe that work, coherence, and sincerity are enough. Yet these are precisely the qualities that make them vulnerable.

Figures such as Nelson Mandela or Václav Havel illustrate how difficult it is to remain ethical in an environment structured by power struggles, manipulation, and lies.

5. Social media: the weapon of cynics

In the contemporary world, social media has become the preferred tool of predators and opportunists. It enables:

• targeted smear campaigns,

• extreme simplification of ideas,

• rapid moral disqualification,

• permanent emotional overload at the expense of reasoning.

Sincere actors, who speak with nuance and complexity, are structurally disadvantaged. They become targets of constant, often coordinated attacks combining lies, insinuations, and personal assaults.

The result is a cruel paradox: the more honest and competent someone is, the more politically vulnerable they become.

Conclusion: a field to clean up, not to abandon

Politics does not attract only predators or resentful failures. But the current system objectively favors them. As long as politics remains a career space rather than a space of responsibility, the most cynical profiles will continue to thrive.

The danger is not only moral—it is collective. When competent and sincere people are crushed or discouraged, it is not just politics that becomes poorer, but society as a whole.

Rehabilitating the common good in politics requires fewer slogans and stronger institutional protections for those who genuinely want to act. Without that, predators will continue to rule—and mediocrity will continue to obstruct.