Yah, I know you hate politics and are suspicious of
political power, but are they not two of the most essential ingredients of a
free society?
Of course, you love your own freedom, and perhaps are in the
habit of lending your voice in support of the freedom of others, but how
cheerfully do you pay the essential cost of everyone’s freedom? The fact is that most of us righteously
insist on the absolute superiority of our own values and priorities, but at
what cost do we diminish the values of our political opponents?
Since you live in a “republic” rather than a monarchy,
theocracy, or oligarchy, how essential is the art of politics and
politicians? Might there be a difference
between healthy or unhealthy politics?
What would be your definition of politics?
Now that you’ve defined politics, how do you define
power? When is power essential? When is power unhealthy? Now that you’ve given politics and power a
good think, do you believe that it’s possible to maintain freedom without
powerful entities within the structure of a healthy, prosperous, just, and
secure free society?
I’ve always understood politics as the art of the possible
within a structure of standards and rules.
“Power,” it seems to me, is the force that compels compliance with
societal expectations.
Not long ago, I read in the New York Times the following
definitions of politics and power. According to the late professor Robert A.
Dahl of Yale University, politics is the process of the authoritative
allocation of values. Power exists, he
asserted, when A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do
something that B would not otherwise do.
It has become quite fashionable for you and me to express
our distaste for politics and power, especially if those with priorities and
values that differ from ours occupy the stations of authority. Therein dwells our individual invitation to
unintended hypocrisy. Try these evaluations of powerful historical figures on
for size.
George Washington, the “Father of Our Country”, was a man
beyond reasonable reproach. Ah, but
which side of Washington are we talking about –- the Continental Army’s
Commander-In-Chief or the federal authority figure who, in 1794, led 20,000
soldiers against poor western Pennsylvania farmers to collect federal taxes on
their corn whiskey? (What do you suppose
President Obama’s opponents would say if he were to authorize the collection of
delinquent taxes that way?)
Abraham Lincoln put principle above politics or power. Ah, but was that when Lincoln tried to
convince visiting black ministers on the advantages to their people of mass
emigration back to Central America? Or do we celebrate the Lincoln who issued the
clearly unconstitutional Emancipation Proclamation?
Franklin D. Roosevelt is believed by many to have saved the
American people from two mortal threats in twelve years: economic ruin from
within and aggression from without. Was
he more successful because he was a good politician or because he was a man of
principle?
Ronald Reagan is considered, even by some progressives, as
ranking within the top 10 of our greatest presidents. Did his success have to do more with his
“conservatism” or with his personal magnetism?
Barack Obama is regarded by many as a socialist who is more
sympathetic to world views than to American ways. Did President Obama display his socialistic
sympathies and low regard for American values when he halted our slide toward
depression by bailing out the auto industry and the banks? Did he demonstrate his lack of concern for
our security when he became the first president since FDR to be responsible for
the demise of two foreign tyrants (Osama bin Laden and Muammar Qaddafi) during
his first term of office?
Having hopefully drawn your attention to the vagaries of
four of our presidents, I’ll now toss your way one of the vagaries of the
American people.
Why is it patriotic to expect one’s fellow citizens to
sacrifice their well-being in war, but merely irksome and less than patriotic
to share one’s wealth by cheerfully paying taxes?
The truth is that too often, without an adequate definition
of terms, we habitually create our own political monsters, not so much as a
national defense, but more damagingly as a political red carpet on which our
favorite political politicians and causes might easily stroll towards power.
In 2008, Barack Obama’s near landslide victory was invariably
offset by privately well-financed press and media institutions well placed to
blunt the enthusiasm of his deliriously optimistic supporters. I’d argue that the last time there was a
change of political power in Washington with the optimistic expectations of
most Americans, Dwight Eisenhower handed the reins of power over to John
Kennedy. Since 1964, a myriad of issues
and circumstances have slowly eroded our openness to the good intentions of
political or ideological opponents.
Free government is less than 300 years old, a mere
experiment in comparison to monarchy, feudalism, or theocracy. Much time, print, and media airtime has been
given to the possible military, economic, and ideological threats to our
future. Too little time has been given
to the danger that we’ve become a quarrelsome society more concerned about our
personal righteousness than we are about our national well-being. The history of the past 52 years indicates
that we, the people, may well be our own worst enemy.
The real likelihood, I fear, is that we may needlessly be
fretting ourselves to death!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
No comments:
Post a Comment