Like balancing whose interests?

I'm thinking you're meaning like "politics is about trying to understand/impact what could plausibly occur", whereas the "truth" you mention is inherantly unconcerned with that, but I think there's also value in finding and debating it.

What's implementation without a target? Is politics concerned with improving conditions for people, or is it just balancing enough interests that we don't start killing eachother?

It's shades of both I think, and there's fierce disagreement about both the global optimum and how to or if it's worth getting there

I thought about balancing the interests of those who have power, by all means short of war.

And of course this begs the question who has power and who should have power.

The will to improve living conditions comes from the interests of those who have political power, in my view. You can say because of democracy if you like. Or, more cynically, dependence on labor and consumption (Fordism), or, more idealistically, ethical values in powerful people themselves, and all of that are nuances and not absolutes I guess.

But I wouldn't say that my definition was precise.

I just wanted to point out that it is not a given for politics to have the goal of optimizing utilitarian interests, maximizing wellbeing or long-term goals such as protecting people.

In other words, participants in politics do not only discuss how things should be achieved, but also what should be achieved.

If that makes sense: this is what I meant by "balancing powers". I'm not sure right now how to map it to the two poles you describe.