Political Apathy & Antipathy and the Role of Politics

“A pox on both their houses” – Perfection as a Standard for Political Action

We have come through another contentious election.  But I think I have heard “A pox on both their houses” (speaking of partisan politics) one time too many to not respond.  People who find the rhetoric/methods/contention of politics distasteful disengage, justifying it by claiming to take the higher moral ground.  What does that solve?  Does that address the important issues, or leave it to the loud and distasteful, or those lacking in judgment or information? 

Of course we can and should raise the quality of our political discourse – focusing more on issues than personal attacks -- which is difficult for the party whose character is incessantly maligned for political gain.  But when entire parties and positions are dismissed out of hand, or the entire political process, because of the words or actions of some who claim to represent various parties, or because contention is viewed as unworthy, a disservice is done, and those with lower standards prevail.  Contention is inevitable in any dispute over important issues – a case in point being the war in heaven (Rev. 12:7-11), where contentious words were apparently used as weapons to overcome & cast out Satan.  This contention or war clearly was sanctioned by God, and heaven would be very different now without that contention. 

The aversion to political partisanship is closely akin to the prevailing moral relativism that tends to neutralize any counters to the evils of our day.  For instance, America is not perfect either, therefore it has no right to put forward its nobler values or take actions in geopolitics.  Or Christianity is not perfect either, therefore militant Islam cannot be criticized or fought, nor can Christianity assert any of its values against moral decadence.  Moral relativism, and aversion to political partisanship, subverts the underlying truths and values by condemning them for the words or actions of some adherents -- a standard of perfection.  But evil’s (& poor judgment’s, incompetence’s) standard is far from perfection, and they are all too willing to take action.  When the only counter to evil, poor judgment & incompetence is immobilized (albeit with good intentions – with which the road to hell is paved) because it is imperfect, guess who wins?

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” -- Edmund Burke

Note that he says good men, not perfect men.

I will first give some moral (theological/scriptural) arguments for political partisanship (feel free to skip those if you are so inclined), and then some logical and historical arguments from Charles Krauthammer's new book, Things That Matter.  Perhaps the pox more rightly belongs on the house of those who go about wishing poxes on others' houses.

Some Moral Justification for Partisanship

Here is some biblical wisdom for fence-sitters:  (Rev. 3:15-16)  “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.  So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.”

And further back in the Old Testament, (Joshua 24: 15)
“…choose you this day whom ye will serve; …. but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.”

And as we read in 1 Kings 18:22, “And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions?...”

Continuing on a religious theme, the war in heaven was fought at least in part over free agency vs. subservience to Satan.  Our God-given agency is part of the purpose of life – to make choices in a world of opposition.  And of course choices will have consequences – not only in this life, but in that to come (Matth. 16:27, Rev. 20:12).  We can only make choices (including political) with information, and, just as in our justice system, that information is generally presented by partisan advocates for each side, and there is inevitable contention.  Unfortunately, not all contention can be resolved peacefully, as evidenced by America’s revolutionary & civil wars, and many others throughout history, where the differences were simply too deep and wide.  But fortunately, most of the time contention can be resolved peacefully, if not perfectly amicably.

The LDS Church for one, while not taking political sides, encourages participation in our political process. Here are a few of its relevant modern scriptures – hopefully even non-LDS can see at least wisdom in them.

D&C 98: 9  “Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn.

10  Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil.

D&C 134: 3  “We believe that all governments necessarily require civil officers and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same; and that such as will administer the law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people if a republic,…

4  “We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.

7  “We believe that rulers, states, and governments have a right, and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all citizens in the free exercise of their religious belief; but we do not believe that they have a right in justice to deprive citizens of this privilege, or proscribe them in their opinions,

D&C 101: 80  “And for this purpose have I [God] established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.”

Having been a student of American history, I can clearly see the hand of God in it’s founding – for instance in the life of George Washington & the American Revolution.  I would note how partisan and contentious the founding fathers were in their conventions and writings (e.g., the Federalist Papers), and that the Constitution’s form of government countenances and accommodates (even relies on) partisan contention or differences of opinion in and between the branches of government.  Much of the privileges we enjoy today are the fruits of the founding fathers’ partisan contention (and sometimes rancorous, by accounts).

In my blog header, I’ve written “In this great nation, the two-party political system serves a similar adversarial purpose as opposing advocates in the judicial system.  It illuminates the issues on both sides, to more clearly see the truth and best solutions.  When one party is completely out of power [as was the case in Obama’s first term, when this blog began], the need for their perspective is magnified.  Democracy is not a spectator sport -- may we love, work and pray for this great nation.”  That is the purpose of this blog – if it is partisan, opinionated and contentious, all the better.

Of course implicit in all of this is a degree of American exceptionalism – an idea that is out of vogue with certain partisans. 

The Pre-eminent Field of Politics

In his introduction to Things That Matter, Charles Krauthammer says that the book “…was originally going to be a collection of my writings about everything but politics.  …. But in the end I couldn’t.  For a simple reason, the same reason I left psychiatry for journalism. While science, medicine, art, poetry, architecture, chess, space, sports, number theory and all things hard and beautiful promise purity, elegance and sometimes even transcendence, they are fundamentally subordinate.  In the end, they must bow to the sovereignty of politics. 

“Politics, the crooked timber of our communal lives, dominates everything because, in the end, everything – high and low and, most especially high – lives or dies by politics.  Get your politics wrong, however and everything stands to be swept away.  This is not ancient history.  This is Germany 1933.

“This is no abstraction.  We see it in North Korea….in China’s Cultural Revolution…in Taliban Afghanistan…  Politics is the moat, the walls, beyond which lie the barbarians.  … The entire 20^th century with its mass political enthusiasms is a lesson in the supreme power of politics to produce ever-expanding circles of ruin. World War I….The Russian Revolution and its imitators (Chinese, Cuban, Vietnamese, Cambodian)…the Holocaust. 

“…The work of man – more particularly, the work of politics, of groups of men organized to gain and exercise power.  Which in its day-to-day conduct tends not to be the most elevated of human enterprises.  Machiavelli gave it an air of grandeur and glory. …

“The most considered and balanced statement of politics’ place in the hierarchy of human disciplines came, naturally, from an American.  “I must study politics and war,” wrote John Adams, “that my sons may have the liberty to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, and naval architecture, statuary, tapestry and porcelain.”

“Adams saw clearly that politics is the indispensable foundation for things elegant and beautiful.  First and above all else, you must secure life, liberty and the right to pursue your own happiness.  That’s politics done right, hard-earned, often by war.  And yet the glories yielded by such a successful politics lie outside itself. …. Note Adams’ double reference to architecture: The second generation must study naval architecture – a hybrid discipline of war, commerce and science – before the third can freely and securely study architecture for its own sake.

“The most optimistic implication of Adams’ dictum is that once the first generation gets the political essentials right, they remain intact to nurture the future.  Yet he himself once said that “there never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” Jefferson was even less sanguine about the durability of liberty.  He wrote that a constitutional revolution might be needed every 20 years.  Indeed, the lesson of our history is that the task of merely maintaining strong and sturdy the structures of a constitutional order is unending, the continuing and ceaseless work of every generation.

“To which I have devoted much of my life.  And which I do not disdain by any means.

…While political practice deserves grudging respect for its power, political philosophy commands reverence for its capacity for grandeur and depth, as exemplified in the sublime texts of the American founding.”

Politics & The Fermi Paradox

In his essay, “Are We Alone in the Universe?” Charles Krauthammer addresses the Fermi Paradox – that with so many worlds discovered, why no sign yet of other life?  He cites the Drake equation estimating the number of intelligent civilizations, and the possibility that the answer may lie in the last factor, the fraction of the planet’s lifetime during which an intelligent civilization survives.  That it may be very small due to self-annihilation, e.g., by nuclear war. 

He then says, “Rather than despair, let’s put the most hopeful face on the cosmic silence and on humanity’s own short, already baleful history with its new Promethean powers:  Intelligence is a capacity so godlike, so protean that it must be contained and disciplined.  This is the work of politics – understood as the ordering of society and the regulation of power to permit human flourishing while simultaneously restraining the most Hobbesian human instincts.”

“There could be no greater irony:  For all the sublimity of art, physics, music, mathematics and other manifestations of human genius, everything depends on the mundane, frustrating, often debased vocation known as politics (and its most exacting subspecialty – statecraft).  Because if we don’t get politics right, everything else risks extinction.

“We grow justly weary of our politics.  But we must remember this:  Politics – in all its grubby, grasping, corrupt, contemptible manifestations – is sovereign in human affairs.  Everything ultimately rests upon it. 

“Fairly or not, politics is the driver of history.  It will determine whether we will live long enough to be heard one day.  Out there.  By them, the few – the only – who got it right.”  [Or, I add, to be worthy in the eyes of God of preserving the divinely established nation and constitution]

A Case in Point: Churchill

Bolstering the pre-eminence of politics, in his Dec. 31, 1999 article, “Winston Churchill: The Indispensable Man,” Krauthammer offers a better choice than Albert Einstein (“a solid choice”) for Time magazine’s person of the century.  He explains that “The only possible answer is Winston Churchill.” 

“Take away Churchill in 1940, …and Britain would have settled with Hitler – or worse.  Nazism would have prevailed.  … After having single-handedly saved Western civilization from Nazi barbarism – Churchill was, of course, not sufficient in bringing victory, but he was uniquely necessary – he then immediately rose to warn prophetically against its sister barbarism, Soviet communism.”

“It took a 19^th-century man – traditional in habit, rational in thought, conservative in temper – to save the 20^th century from itself.  The story of the 20^th century is a story of revolution wrought by thoroughly modern men: Hitler, Stalin, Mao and above all Lenin, who invented totalitarianism out of Marx’s cryptic and inchoate communism (and thus earns his place as runner-up to Churchill for Person of the Century).”

“The uniqueness of the 20^th century lies not in its science but in its politics.  …. It invented the police state and the command economy, mass mobilization and mass propaganda, mechanized murder and routinized terror – a breathtaking catalog of political creativity. … And the 20^th is a single story because history saw fit to lodge the entire episode in a single century.  Totalitarianism turned out to be a cul-de-sac.  It came and went.  It has a beginning and an end, 1917 and 1991, a run of 75 years neatly nestled into this century.  That is our story.”

“And who is the hero of that story?  Who slew the dragon? Yes, it was the ordinary man, the taxpayer, the grunt who fought and won the wars. Yes it was America and its allies. Yes, it was the great leaders: FDR, de Gaulle, Adenauer, Truman, John Paul II, Thatcher, and Reagan.  But above all, victory required one man without whom the fight would have been lost at the beginning.  It required Winston Churchill.”