The Different Faces of Politics
Published in Marietta Daily Journal Nov. 6, 2016
As the saying goes, “Politics is
downstream from culture.” Indeed it
is. Our politics is us. Those in office are those we placed in
office. In a democratic society,
political leaders are definitely a reflection of the people.
Politics is also two-faced. One face is that of winks and ulterior
motives. The other face is that of
selfless, sincere people who enter politics to make things better.
Most dictionaries define politics as
the science of government, but we know better.
Politics has never been a science, though it could be called an
art. True science deals with or works
from immutable laws. Few if any things
in government are immutable or “nailed down.”
Governmental policy can change in a whiff. Political “convictions” can change even
faster.
Rather than viewing politics as
having to do with governing, we best define it, honestly, as the practice of
seeking and holding on to public office.
For a large number of citizens, the
very word “politics” conjures negative thoughts. More than ever, Americans are viewing
politics as dirty. Dirt is dirty too,
but it produces, directly or indirectly, every bite of food that we put into
our mouths. Perhaps this comparison is
not apt, however. Dirt can be
cultivated, fertilized, and prepared for producing good food, and is seldom
resistant to the preparation. The heart
of the politician is not always so receptive to such preparation mixture.
Nobody should think that dirty
politics is of recent vintage. Read of
the presidential campaigns – almost any of them – that stretch back to Adams
and Jefferson. Re-read what was said
about Andrew Jackson’s wife Rachel. And
don’t forget Richard Nixon’s VP and attack dog, Spiro Agnew, who called Nixon’s
media critics “nattering nabobs of negativism.”
To me, Agnew’s alliterative words were not only amusing, but true.
One ancient writing reads, “Let no
corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth.” That means don’t talk ugly. Surely it also refers to lying. Politics has always been a land in which
corrupt communication abounds, whether lies, insinuation, or slander. Why? Because some office seekers and office holders
are willing to employ it to win or keep office.
They enjoy orbiting around the powerful so much that corrupt
communication is no big deal.
Politics is also the land of weasel
words. Consider the concoction,
“reproductive freedom.” It actually
means abortion. It is the most ironic
and deceptive weasel word of all. It
references reproduction when its objective is the halting of reproduction. “Reproductive freedom” actually means the
freedom and legality to get rid of a totally helpless, unborn baby.
There are others. “Undocumented worker” happens to be a
technically accurate expression, but it is meant to tone down the more precise
term, “illegal immigrant.” In that
sense, it is deceptive. Everybody knows
that “revenue enhancements” are taxes and that “to evolve” means to change
one’s mind or position purely to get votes.
But consider the other face of
politics, that of men and women in politics in whom there is no guile. They are far too few. One of their prototypes is William
Wilberforce, the passionate British evangelical and member of Parliament who
effectively ended slavery in the British Empire.
Wilberforce did so with the support
of several fellow Parliament members who openly lived immoral lives. Because of a deep sense of justice,
Wilberforce was willing to lay aside his disdain for the vile lives of his
colleagues in Parliament and work with them in order to alleviate the horrible
suffering of African slaves. It is
doubtful that the British Empire would have ended slavery had not Wilberforce
worked with people whose behavior he detested.
Strange bedfellows, we call it.
Politics is one thing. Statesmanship and effective statecraft are
another. For those who find themselves
in a conundrum regarding for whom to vote for President, Wilberforce’s own
conundrum is instructive. He studied his
realistic options, chose sides, and took action. Britain and the world were made better
because of it.
Regarding this week’s election, if voters
consider Donald Trump vile, they should also consider the words, views, and
behavior of Hillary Clinton. Perhaps our
guiding question should be how much government do we want.
Biographer Eric Metaxas in the Wall
Street Journal recently wrote, “We already live in a country where judges force
bakers, florists, and photographers to violate their consciences and faith, and
Mr. Clinton has zealously ratified this.”
The time is close. As Metaxas added, “Not to vote is to vote.”
Roger
Hines
11/3/16
No comments:
Post a Comment