Most readers will agree that politics is about power. It’s about interpersonal power in social settings. It’s about group influence over governance. Decision-making. Organizing. Motivating followers.
Some people are good at the personal side of this – the art of politics. Others expend great effort to understand the dynamics of politics – the ideologies and techniques. Some, having decided that they are neither good at politics nor knowledgeable enough about its dynamics, choose to “not participate” – to sit out, or contribute money in the same way they contribute to a church. This approach avoids a lot of conflict.
But some of us, even if we’re not especially “good” at personal persuasion or motivation, are fully aware of the basic principles of freedom of thought and expression, so we can’t help but wonder what is happening in our beloved communities – to say nothing of society at large! Is politics broken? Is there some important element missing preventing our comprehending the strife around us? It grows more pronounced every day. We look for responses to those who advocate armed civil war, or who attack art museums with tomato juice, or those who just seem to have checked out. Somebody with answers must be there … somewhere.
A quick history of the polity – from neolithic times through great empires to global capitalism –supports the notion that governments are established both to promote social order and protect privilege. That is politics. Many challenges have always confronted the enterprise. The greater burden, through all ages of history, has been on the dispossessed, the marginalized groups, to develop a plan for increasing their power in society. The privileged groups – the ruling classes – traditionally have had an easier task in protecting their assets. At least that’s been my reading of history.
This dynamic of power relationships in society, in local communities, and even in families has remained unchanged throughout history. It’s part of the human condition. It has likewise become apparent in all civilizations that have survived for any length of time that the best way to prevent conflict is to perfect the art of compromise. Nobody in distress should be kept outside the power structure. Nobody who is heavily invested in the existing power structure should be immune from the demands of outsiders. Democracies have found their mechanisms for compromise – constitutions and elections. Authoritarian regimes tend to favor a mix of emotional appeals to the populace (pandering) and focus on a few salient issues to mollify both outsiders and insiders (bribes). The toolkit of politics includes all these methods – both democratic and authoritarian.
What about factionalism and particularity? Many of us are proud of our cosmopolitan leanings – we like living with lots of different kinds of people – but some feel uncomfortable or inadequate when forced to deal with somebody who is different from them by culture, economic circumstances, language, even skin color. Cosmopolitan types prefer to live in urban agglomerations, particularist types prefer rural or small communities. Unfortunately for the United States (says me), we have historically had a large cohort of particularists living in less densely populated parts of the country. It may not be possible to change such basic predispositions, but thanks to mass media (those Hollywood elites!) we at least try. The Roman Empire tried this as well in its post-Constantinian period, which some say led to its decline and ultimate dissolution (Edward Gibbon?). Yet, our western tradition holds that the centrality of a universal trans-cultural religion, Christianity, has been a net force for good. Perhaps diversity of factions is good, and uniformity from particularity bad?
Mass media may be the most predominant global institution at work today, but there are others as well. Most capital in the world is controlled by a relatively small number of individuals. Money itself tends to be a great equalizer. The politics of money relies on two very important features: 1) it’s fungible – can easily be converted from one form of capital to another; and 2) it’s never stationary – can move around the world at the speed of light (or at least the fastest broadband). And money doesn’t even need to exist in reality – it has equal power as a promise, or potential, for the future! This gives money a near-religious appeal to its strongest adherents. Its politics are easily equated with faith and hope – the very same emotional drivers exploited by those Hollywood elites in their mass entertainment products.
But what of the haters? The nihilists? Republicans and others who seem to lap up messages of victimhood and persecution. They often are susceptible to a politics of cruelty, of blaming some other group, or country – not their own. It’s somebody else’s fault, let’s throttle them – surely, in a zero-sum world, that will redound to our benefit! This is politics just as much as that faith and hope creed.
I must convince myself that we DO NOT live in a zero-sum world (admittedly, the climate crisis poses some difficulty) — that there really are political solutions to vexing problems that can benefit us all – does that make me a technocrat? Often, I must take a “long view” of things like geopolitics to convince myself, however. American foreign policy these days (perhaps for my entire life?) is full of such strained justifications for actions that I frequently must disown them when viewed through the lens of history. But, regarding the complex interplay of nation-states around the world, the historian’s “long view” is my sole refuge. Sigh. No flag burning or chanting “From the River to the Sea” for me, despite some empathy for all those strong feelings.
Is Joe Biden too old to function in this political sphere? Is Donald Trump too wildly insane? What is the proper role of values in a political campaign? The choice looming before us this fall seems relatively easy – but perhaps neither candidate for President is the perfect icon for our own beliefs. Over the past eight years I’ve said goodbye to Bernie Sanders … even to Karl Marx (except in an abstract, quasi-Biblical vein). Politics for me must reflect current realities and choices between actual alternatives. Best choices critically mean, “compared to the alternatives.” But we can still plan a future. Those plans can include dreams and utopian visions, so long as they are tempered by real knowledge of the world, its history, and the forces at work in it.
— William Sundwick
Warp and Woof 