On Politics — Part I
Copyright © 2010 by Bill Becker
Vehement, virulent, and venomous criticism of our elected representatives has for decades been America's favorite national pastime, and I realize that coming to their defense might be the surest ticket to a ride out of town on a rail. Nevertheless, long-accepted standards of fair play demand that this most despised sector of America's body politic be given a fair hearing. This I propose to do. (Note: I use the terms "politicians" and "lawmakers" interchangeably; they are synonymous in common parlance.)
First, I will present a short civics course explaining why we have politicians and what they actually do. Second, I will ask the question that cannot be spoken aloud — at least I have never heard it so much as whispered in polite company: is it possible that the American electorate bears some responsibility for those who make the laws? Finally, I will ask whether our citizen-critics of our politicians would do better themselves were they to "walk in the politician's shoes." I will not use big words.
I plan to present my thesis in three parts. Parts II and III will follow as time permits.
Part I
Why do we have politicians?
Because a few hundred years ago a few English nobles felt that their kings and queens "disrespected" them, although they did not use that term. These nobles started a movement that led to better treatment by the monarchy. After a while, the common people, who were smarter than the monarchy and the nobility thought they were, got the idea that they too were being "disrespected." This novel idea led to some unruly behavior on their part, and after a while, a crude system of fair play called the common law came into being so the economy could recover.
At some point the English people decided that they didn't need the monarch for more than ceremonial purposes, and at a different point the English colonists decided they didn't need the monarch at all. So the colonists revolted and became Americans. What is important here is that both the English and the Americans kept the law.
As they did in England, Americans also realized that someone had to make the laws. After careful consideration, they decided that it would be better if the lawmakers were Americans, rather than, say, the French. So, the American Republic came into being, and we elected our neighbors to public office. This is the system we have today.
What do lawmakers do?
The answer that comes immediately to mind is that they make laws. This is of course true, but in fact, making the laws is the least important of their functions. The most important thing that lawmakers do is compromise with other lawmakers. Making the law is an afterthought.
Most people do not understand this, as was illustrated in a conversation I had two hours ago. (Really. I am not making this up.) I was speaking with a friend, whom I will call Jack. Jack proposed a solution to our current political gridlock; a "solution" believed in fervently by millions of people. Jack said that we should just stop talking in terms of politics — of left and right; Republican and Democrat — and focus instead on our problems themselves. (A moment's reflection will make clear that this proposal is truly "fair and balanced" and "bipartisan". It is so general that it can be supported by anyone of any political persuasion. That is why heads nod sagely when it is proposed. Only when a problem is actually specified does the proposal become arguable.)
Among the problems Jack mentioned were making sure everyone had enough to eat and had a comfortable place to live. The constant political slant of the public debate was preventing us from addressing these problems effectively, he said.
I felt Jack's pain; but I also knew that he did not understand the true nature of politics, so I explained it to him.
First, I said that the laws of any nation are almost literally the nation's moral code. Certainly, differences between the laws of the formerly Confederate states and the laws of the formerly Union states make this perfectly clear. Even a rural county ordinance placing a stop sign at a dangerous intersection reflects a moral position — I leave it to the reader to determine what it is.
Second, I pointed out that where elected representatives, rather than a despot, make the laws, there will be serious differences of opinion on what constitutes "right" and "wrong" law. Thus, I said, it is not possible to avoid politics in addressing any public issue that requires the law for its implementation and/or enforcement. Let me give an example.
It happens that both Jack and I want children of poor mothers to have a nutritious lunch. Even if a mother is somewhat irresponsible in her care of the child, and the child regularly comes to school hungry, we agree that the school should provide that lunch for him or her. We also agree that we have no problem paying for that lunch through our taxes. This seems to us to be the right thing to do. Thus, we want our elected Congressional representative to support a law that will implement and pay for a school lunch policy for all poor children in all states.
But, others live in our Congressional district too, and many of them have a different view of a school lunch program. For them, it is the wrong thing to do. They believe that providing a free lunch for a poor child is nothing more than a reward to her mother for not going out and getting a job. The best solution, according to this viewpoint, is for the child to become so hungry that the mother will finally get off her duff and get a job — ideally as an executive secretary or something like that. Or, if the mother is intractable, maybe the child will get so hungry that she will go out and get a job herself, and thus be able to buy her own lunch. (She could get a paper route, for example.) In fact, was it not just this kind of incentive that made America great? Without such incentive, will we not be conditioned to let others take care of us? Will we not become soft and flabby, and unable to resist aggression by those who hate us? Is not the school lunch program actually a national security threat — code red?
Now, what is important here is not the mere fact that Jack and I want to see a school lunch program implemented, and others oppose it. What is important is how many of us there are vs. how many of them. As always, it's all in the numbers.
If people like me and Jack are the majority in our district, it is likely that our representative will support school lunches. If our opponents are the majority, it is likely that our representative will oppose school lunches. (The latter is the situation in my own Congressional district, where our young Republican Congressman, who constantly refers to the "socialist" policies of the Democrats, is always reelected by a landslide.)
But, sometimes a law (a.k.a. a "bill") is proposed that can only be passed with a few votes from the opposition.
For example, let's say that a Republican congresswoman — I will call her Michele (not her real name) — wants funding for a particular enhancement on a military base in her primarily rural district. (Michele of course opposes the school lunch program.) We will also posit that Michele needs the votes of some Democrats to pass the bill. She goes to their most articulate spokesman — I will call him Al (not his real name either) — to ask for their support. The following conversation ensues:
Michele: (Suppressing a gag reflex as she approaches Al) Hi Al. I'm hoping that you'll vote for H.R. 222, my proposal to erect a 200' high monument to our brave soldiers outside the gates of the Norris Air Force Base.
Al: (With a twinkle in his eye) Can you clarify, Michele? Do you mean that our brave soldiers are outside the gates of Norris, or that you want to erect the monument there? Will it be a giant obelisk? (He winks.)
Michele: (Clearly annoyed) The monument, Al. And the final design hasn't been chosen.
Al: Why should I vote for it?
Michele: (With a bubbly smile) Because it's the right thing to do, of course. You'll be applauded for your bipartisan, patriotic spirit.
Al: Don't make me laugh, Michele. It's pure pork, and you introduced it only so that your biggest campaign contributors, Giant Concrete and Republic Steel, can rake in a few million bucks.
Michele: Did not!!! I did it to provide jobs for my constituents. And, I'm sure that the monument will inspire local farm workers, who will pass by it every morning on the way to the fields, to work harder. Maybe they won't complain so much about how they're treated by the growers.
Al: Sorry, Michele, you'll have to do better than that. These two companies are themselves subsidiaries of the agribusiness giants.
Michele: (Ignoring his comment) How can we get to "yes," Al?
Al: Well, maybe there's a way. I understand that you oppose the school lunch program that Bernie (not his real name, either) introduced: H.R. 150.
Michele: (Warily) Yes??
Al: If you would be willing to vote for H.R. 150, I might be able to persuade a few of my colleagues to support H.R. 222.
Michele: (Again suppressing a gag reflex.) That's not fair, Al!! (An awkward silence as Al simply looks at her without comment.) Ok. But I can't vote for it exactly as it stands. You'll have to make some changes. For example, your program explicitly prohibits high-fructose corn syrup beverages in the school lunches. My corn growers would tar and feather me if I supported it that way.
Al: Sorry Michele, that's non-negotiable. And, in today's health-conscious climate, you'd get slammed for promoting childhood obesity.
Michele: (To herself: I really, really want this monument.) Well, how about if you allow the kids to have a 1 oz. package of potato chips with their lunch, instead of prohibiting them as well?
Al: (After a pause) I think that will work. Several of our supporters have potato chip makers in their districts. But, you'll have to compromise, too.
Michele: (Barely suppressing the gag reflex) How?
Al: I think 200' high is a bit much. How about 50'? That's still pretty massive. It will cost the taxpayers less, too, which is what you Republicans are always talking about now that there's a Democrat in the White House.
Michele: 50' won't do it, Al; you know that size matters. How about 75'?
Al: (Another pause) I think we've got a deal. Want to shake on it? (He extends his hand.)
Michele: (At first recoiling in disgust, Michele reluctantly takes Al's hand. They shake. ) Ok; deal.
Al: Great!! I'll get the ball rolling and both bills will be on the floor next Monday. (Al leaves. Michele takes out a handi-wipe and scrubs her hand.)
Monday arrives. H.R. 222 and H.R. 150, both of which include Al's and Michele's agreement, as well as similar compromises made between other legislators, are passed. Al rises to congratulate Michele on her bipartisan support for a bill to help poor children. Michele smiles woodenly, looking much like former First Lady Laura Bush. The House adjourns for lunch, and Michele, managing not to draw attention to herself, vomits into a bag by the side of her desk.
In the next election, both Al and Michele are re-elected — Al because he helped poor children as his constituents wanted him to do; Michele because she created a few jobs in the construction of a patriotic monument to America's soldiers, which pleased her constituents. Everybody won except Giant Concrete and Republic Steel, who were not happy with the lower profits they made from the smaller monument. But, they contributed to Michelle's re-election campaign anyway, because of her seniority and popularity. Then their lobbyists contacted the Republican National Committee to suggest that a less compromise-prone Republican might challenge her in the next primary.
The actual give-and-take between politicians is far more complex than this, of course, but my little scenario gives the general idea: it is not possible to avoid "politics" in our decision-making, and compromise is the essential characteristic of politics.
Here ends Part I.
|