A skeptical note on politics

The Norman Transcript

June 09, 2008 12:24 pm

— For The Transcript

The journey of the Yangtze River is long and tortuous. West of Chungking it cuts a gorge in the mountains a
mile deep. This gash in the earth is reminiscent of the divide in the American mind between appearance and
reality, between fantasy and fact -- a cleavage that is deep and dangerous.
This cleft creates numerous misconceptions assuring misjudgments. So we swing from the rational to the
irrational and back again. We pursue goals that are imprudent, yield to fear and retreat into political
mythology, economic folklore and religious fundamentalism. Sometimes we are unable to distinguish friends
from enemies, and selfishness leads us to initiate senseless wars. The split in the Yangtze gorge distorts only
one province in China. The split in American perception distorts not only understanding of our own society
but it also distorts our understanding of the world. Reflect for a moment on how words contribute to the
cleavage. Early French and Italian dictionaries were superior to those in English. That irascible genius Samuel
Johnson sought to rectify this problem. After years of preparation he published his "Dictionary" in 1775, a
reference of eminence for a century. In it he defined a politician as a "man of artifice; one of deep
contrivance." That unflattering indictment has continued through the years.
Some critics say that all politicians are corrupt. Probably it would be more accurate to say that some
politicians are corrupt some of the time. They do both serve and shape political parties, and in their way they
carry forward the business of government, sometimes efficiently sometimes inefficiently. Still, a hard look at
our major parties is perturbing. Both are flawed. They leave many with a sense of abandonment, alienation
and doubts about democracy. Both are a disappointment. They are not always trustworthy and they are a
jumble of conflicting interests. On occasion they play loosely with the truth. Both take the short-term view;
both modify their "principles" when convenient. Both advocate democracy but are likely to practice
expediency. Both suffer social-economic myopia. They tend to substantiate further Lord Acton's disquieting
aphorism that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The Republican Party seems to have forgotten its roots and the mission that launched it. Names like Lincoln
and Teddy Roosevelt tend to be dead symbols of worship reminding one of the gods of the enemies of the
ancient Hebrews. The party is dominated by the wealthy and by powerful corporations that smother the
idealism of democracy while promoting only a casual concern for the public need.
Weaknesses in the Party of Democrats are equally appalling. They have forgotten that Jefferson -- in spite of
his racial blind spot -- was a man of vision and courage. The Great Depression, the New Deal and FDR are
fading images. Party leaders should be teachers. They should make it clear to us all that the dire
circumstances of the early 1930s seemed to narrow America's choice to Fascism on the right and Communism
on the left. FDR found a middle way thereby saving the country and the capitalistic system. One of the
greatest ironies in our history is the political right rewarding him with loathing. Ingratitude and pride not only
weakened the Republicans in this regard, but egotism all but destroyed the Democratic Party under LBJ. His
blind insistence on sustaining the Vietnamese War is one of the greatest mistakes the Democrats have ever
made. A close second is their failure to stand courageously against GWB's invasion of the Middle East. The
Democratic Party resistance is worthy of an invertebrate.
Economic differences between the Democratic and Republican parties are minor. They play tug of war over
taxation, but have no defined principles on the subject. And certainly not on the subject of a balanced budget.
For many decades the Republicans stood firmly for the latter, but maladroit leadership driven by avarice seem
to have undermined that conviction. In theory both parties are committed to laissez-faire, but in practice do
not hesitate to dip into the public treasury when conditions are opportune.
Both affirm loyalty to a "free market" -- which they do not bother to define -- and which they manipulate
when an advantage is to be gained. Both twist the laws for power and wealth. Both casually watch the eroding
and migrating base of our industrial economy. Neither gives serious attention to our diminishing resources.
Occasional outbursts come from one side of the aisle or the other on the necessity of escaping dependence on
foreign oil. Talk often follows but no serious legislation and no action, although war is now substituted for
thoughtful solutions. The idea that 100,000 or so GI's can assure the flow of petroleum to 300 million oil
thirsty Americans, when a billion Moslems sit on the reserves, is a high-order self-deception. The hard truth is
that both parties and their leaders are pusillanimous. Solving our oil problem calls for rigorous discipline,
honesty, realism, carefully drafted Federal regulations, the best efforts of our scientists and engineers -- and
conservation. Both parties are paralyzed by fear and fantasy. Even the vice president asserted on national TV
that conservation is unnecessary.
What our complex and emotionally charged problems do is lead us to more government in spite of traditional
conservative American opposition to such growth. Verbal attack on large government by politicians is a
public relations ceremonial. Such attacks change little or nothing, although they satisfy emotions but deal
only tangentially with real problems. The thoughtful advocate of self-government understands that there is a
positive correlation between population growth and increase in the size of government. The realistic
requirement is to keep government working for all, to keep it honest and to make sure that it performs needed
functions, not ritualistic ones.
Predicting is a risky business, especially projecting the activities of politicians and political parties. The
subject is so complicated and the variables so endless, assurance is likely to be marginal. There are, however,
tendencies confronting both that may determine the future of humanity. With the increase in population and
the vowing technological interdependence, conflict and enlarging confusion seem inevitable. The connection
between politics and world population increase is shadowy. That increase will probably continue until reason
dominates emotion, or until population compression generates explosion, or until Malthus' conjectures --
starvation, social disorder, disease and death -- are fulfilled. Whether experience and scientific insight can
overcome the artificially generated fear of birth control is moot. Sex education and contraception can save the
world from uncontrolled over-population if we can see through the fog of religious objections. Neither
political party will face the problem.
Where the winds of time are blowing America is conjectural. But of one thing we can be sure: Humans
generally and politicians in particular assume they have more control over the future than they actually do.
From ancient monarchs and endless Caesars to the limited Presidents of our time, failure of the powerful is
best ascribed to one quality -- pride. Alexander Pope understood and put it pointedly:
Of all the causes which conspire to blind
Man's erring judgment, and misguided mind ...
Is pride the never-failing vice of fools.
Plato thought justice would come when philosophers became kings. In the same spirit, and with no intention
of deprecating that premier Greek sage, peace and prudent government will likely come when politicians
master the philosophic wisdom woven throughout the poetry of the world.
Lloyd Williams is a retired educator. He has long believed that Shakespeare and Shelley, Wordsworth,
Coleridge and Hardy typify minds that bring the most perceptive edge to social-political criticism.

Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.