In defense of politics

[jducoeur]

I was talking with a friend in their own journal the other day, and they pointed out that the word "politics", as used in the common parlance nowadays, tends to mean only the nasty sort. It's probably true, but I think this is a bad idea, so here's a brief defense of why politics should not be thought of as fundamentally evil. Pardon the exhortation, but this is a point I find I really care about.

First, let's be clear: politics are always with us. There's nothing wrong or broken about that -- it simply reflects the differences between people. Your priorities and views are not exactly the same as mine, and we need to mediate and address those differences, and figure out how to work together. That's what politics is for: mediating our differences.

On the national level, it's the same thing. "Politics" isn't about greed -- it's about managing the internal differences that we have as a society. We have a *lot* of differences, and managing them isn't an easy task. But it's absolutely essential if we are to be able to function.

So done right, politics is not only not evil, it's a downright noble calling. I mean, I have to look at this as a Mason: a member of a club that is dedicated to principles of truth and brotherhood and all that kind of stuff. It's not accidental that a lot of Masons have historically taken a path into politics -- indeed, it's downright logical. If you think that helping society work smoothly is important, then politics is important. The serious and principled politician understands how delicate his job is: to reflect his views and those of his constituents, as well as to help the larger society function. Balancing those requires discipline, care and thought.

Yes, it is true that there are plenty of bad politicians, of various stripes. Some are simply venal: people who follow the path into politics as a means of accumulating personal power and wealth. Some are fanatics, who don't understand that, if they tear society apart in pursuing the goals of their faction, they do no one any favors. And some are just plain incompetent.

But I think it's counter-productive to *expect* that of our politicians, tempting though that is. Frankly, if we expect our politicians to be partisans, we subtly encourage partisanship: we send them and ourselves the message that that's how things work. And we've seen in recent years how destructive hyper-partisanship can be. (Frankly, there was a period of about two years there when I wasn't sure the country would survive, although I *think* we've steered past the rapids.) And if we tell ourselves that only bad people go into politics, the good ones that we want and need in the job won't do it -- why would any good person go into a career that receives only scorn?

It's crucial to remember that politics can be a force for good -- and that good does *not* necessarily mean winning every fight. It means working through our collective differences to find the necessary compromises. Yes, compromise sucks, but it is frequently the best course for society as a whole. You can usually tell that you've found the right solution if both sides are kind of unhappy about it.

So I urge everyone to resist the easy path towards cynicism, take politics seriously, and remember that many politicians, on all sides, are at least trying to be the good sort. Those need to be encouraged, whether they're our people *or* the loyal opposition. Because if we don't engage in good politics (working with people) we'll inevitably wind up with bad politics (working against them)...

Comments

[cvirtue.livejournal.com]

Well said.

...by other means

[dryfoo.livejournal.com]

Thank you Justin.

Politics is merely among the earliest and most primitive inventions intended replace that very first method of settling disputes: viz. bigger guys with clubs smashing in the skulls of smaller guys. (Another early invention, which Bonobos have, to date, gotten farther along with than we have, is placatory sex.)

In its earliest incarnations, politics involved making friends and allies so that your group of big guys with clubs was more likely to smash the other guy's group of big guys with clubs.

Very slowly, over many thousands of years, we have managed to increase the ratio of "making friends and allies" vs. "smashing guys with clubs". At this point, most people use different names for the skull-smashing versus the making-allies bit (except for von Clausewitz, of course); but the one still hasn't completely replaced the other.

So we shouldn't disparage politics for what it is not, or has not been able to accomplish, but rather appreciate it for what it has. Every Prop 2 override, school board election, primary caucus, Senate roll call, etc. represents another example of people at least not smashing each other with clubs.

Perhaps there's an even better invention hovering in our future. So go ahead an discover/invent it. (Personally, may I recommend taking another look at the placatory screwing?) In the meantime, bad-mouthing politics is often a lazy substitute for thought. Those damn bastards in Congress can't get a flea's-ass worth of stuff done because there are other damn bastards in Congress whose constituents really do fundamentally disagree with you in outlook, analysis, and opinion. You can't expect their representatives to just roll over and do what is "obviously right" to you, even if they are completely wrong-headed about everything. You want them to vote differently? Don't blame their representatives; convince the people they represent, or find more people who don't yet have an opinion either way and find a way to convince them.

If you think that politicians suck, consider the alternative. I recommend, for instance, refreshing yourself on the events of the siege of Sarajevo in the 90's. That's what happens when the politicians leave the field to the big guys with clubs. It's true that those were politicians who whipped things up there, and got their populations eager to have the big guys with clubs take over. But once you start screaming about blood feuds and vengance, what you're doing isn't any longer "politics", no matter what your job title.

[umbran.livejournal.com]

As a theoretical matter, you are certainly correct. However, as a practical matter, it seems to me that you're being too idealistic.

A the saying goes, "hope for the best, plan for the worst." Failing to have fitting expectations of your politicians is a good way to get solidly used and ripped off. The voting public cannot afford to be anything other than cynical. We have far too much at stake, and have been rather heavily burned in this past decade.

Respect and trust must be earned, and it has been quite some time since a national-level politician stood out a being worthy of them.

[jducoeur]

I disagree on a couple of levels, but the difference may be semantic as much as anything. I think it's appropriate to be *skeptical* about our politicians, but not *cynical* about them, if you see my difference. That is, I don't believe we should be naively credulous about them, but cynicism goes too far in my book -- it tends to lead people to disengage from the process, which only makes things worse.

And it's worth noting that I disagree about your last point. While there are certainly many politicians in Washington who aren't worthy of trust, I find quite a lot who are. No, I don't *agree* with them all the time, and they certainly make their share of human mistakes, but there are plenty who I don't think deserve cynicism...

[paquerette.livejournal.com]

This is an excellent post, thanks. :) I have been annoyed at the use of "politics" as a slur for several years now.

[be-well-lowell.livejournal.com]

I would go so far as to say that in the second paragraph, not only is that "what politics is for," but that's what politics *is*. By definition, even.