For the past few days I've had some thoughts circling around regarding current events, but I couldn't quite find the right string to pull in order to start untangling my thoughts. Whichever way I started would have unduly influenced the direction of the post, in ways I wasn't quite ready to write.
So I went back, to my own personal history.
I began my intereset in politics more out of a childish whim than any reasoned knowledge. A decision made while competing with my brother and sister. I did encounter, and even partially accept some of the common beliefs about politics:
All politicians lie. Politics are an ugly, nasty business. Politics is how some incompetent but smooth-talking a$$-kisser gets promoted while better talented, more deserving people get overlooked. Power corrupts - sometimes followed by "and absolute power corrupts absolutely".
At some point, I decided that if every good person just threw their hands up and said "ugh, politics!!!" that would basically leave all the decision making to people who were NOT good. The ones who live up to every negative stereotype regarding power and politics. If we want something different, if we want politics to be better, then we have to be involved.
This raises questions regarding what is 'good' politics and what is 'bad' politics. Where do you draw the line? How do you know when you've been corrupted by power?
As I studied political science, I developed a more nuanced understanding...I think. You see, we distrust politicians partly because we all know it's an act. On some level, at least. Like movie stars and other celebrities, there's the public persona...and it doesn't always match what the person acts like when the cameras and microphones are off. In a small community you can figure out whether someone is genuine or not...but in a nation of over 300 million individuals most of us can't.
The Fables comic books had an interesting claim that elections are like a seduction, which is why Prince Charming did so well. And (like many seducers and politicians) winning the election often involves making promises you can't really keep. And yet we want to be seduced. (Part of Trump's appeal, horrible though he is, was that people felt that they saw the real deal. They distrust the stage persona of a professional politician, and felt more comfortable with Trump - warts and all. That comment, btw, is not meant to excuse or justify voting for Trump. I do think his obvious 'warts' are worse than the hidden 'warts' of his opponents.)
Yet I don't think many politicians believe they are corrupt, or knowingly are passing legislation that will hurt the nation. (I might make an exception for the current Republican tax plan, however. As just one small example of how terrible it is, the potential impact on grad students would be devastating. It seems like they're not even trying to pretend that they care about the rest of us any more.)
Many even got their start because there were real issues they wanted to address (Danica Roem seems like the most recent example.) I suspect that any corruption, if it happens, occurs because of typical human fallacies. Primarily our tendency to confuse policies that are good for us with policies that are good for everyone (after all, you have to win re-election...and if you don't get re-elected how can you help anyone?) and the tendency to believe the ends justifies the means. After all, you know you're right, you know you've got everyone's best interests at heart, you know everything would go great if you could just make your plans a reality - and if people would just stop interfering with you - and what does it matter if you spread false rumors, or mislead the public on what science says about a topic, if those actions help you make the 'right' policies a reality?
That's a rather rich topic all by itself, but it's only part of the tangle I wanted to discuss. So moving along-
Somewhat tied in with the discussion of 'good' politics and 'bad' politics is some assessment of which politicians were 'good' and which were 'bad'.
Which comes perilously close to judging our neighbors. Hmmm. This gets into my Catholic upbringing, which still influences me despite being rather lapsed. So let me rephrase that. I think that "judge not, lest ye be judged" is a reminder that people are inherently complex. If we truly knew someone, inside and out, the way God would, then we would understand and forgive our transgressions. And the forgiveness we want for ourselves is the forgiveness we should give to others. Like in the Lord's Prayer -
And that's another small thread to the tangle...not yet the whole of it.
Sometime around seventh or eighth grade I remember a priest talking to our class about faith, and he described it as an ongoing interaction. The gist of what I recall is this:
Our initial beliefs are often very black and white. Saints and sinners. Good and bad. Then sometimes we start questioning things. We learn that it's more complicated than we thought.
And this is good. The goal, hopefully, is that as you get your questions answered that you gain a stronger, deeper, and more nuanced understanding.
The discussion was related mostly to faith in God, but I think the same can be applied to people (and judging people) as well.
For example, there are three presidents that I would consider the 'best', though granted I haven't exhaustively studied them all and don't know much about the more obscure ones (Chester Arthur, anyone?) Those presidents would be Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, and Franklin Roosevelt.
I feel a bit cliche for saying that, since those are some of the presidents 'anyone' would know...even after they've forgotten whatever they were taught in grade school. And yet they remain well liked and popular for good reason.
George Washington, whose public persona is still influenced by the Cherry Tree Myth, established the tradition of a two-term president. He was the very first president, and he probably could have served longer if he'd chosen to. To have that power and willingly set it aside is a pretty amazing thing. And it helped establish - even solidify - our democratic system at the very onset. Washington giving up power is part of what makes our system strong. It makes us less dependent on a cult of personality, or some specific person being in charge.
Abraham Lincoln, "Honest Abe", who led us through the Civil War and freed the slaves.
And FDR, who led us through the Great Depression and World War II.
Current trends have given us a more nuanced understanding of these men. George Washington owned slaves. Abraham Lincoln may have freed the slaves only because it made political sense at the time (or perhaps he truly believed in abolition but didn't feel it was politically feasible until the end of the Civil War.) FDR ordered the internment of Japanese Americans, broke the tradition of a two term president and tried packing the Supreme Court with his supporters.
None of these men are the heroes we built them up to be. Does that mean they weren't great? Does greatness excuse such behavior? Are we wrong to judge them by our standards, when by the standards of their time they were not unusual? Or perhaps it's even more heroic, to achieve what they have done despite being flawed and imperfect human beings. (And yet that still doesn't make what they did right...)
In Goodwin's book Team of Rivals, she mentions a discussion Abraham Lincoln had on whether George Washington was perfect or not. Lincoln argued that "It makes human nature better to believe that one human being was perfect, that human perfection is possible."
I understand and, to a certain extent, share that sentiment. Not that it's okay to cover up our human frailties in order to keep that mirage...
But the modern world is so very, very cynical. Movies are full of anti-heroes, not heroes. Writers try to show nuance and depth by making flawed human beings, which sometimes works well and sometimes just makes the main character rather distasteful...and the cumulative result is kind of depressing.
It makes you feel like there's no hope, whatsoever, of finding someone who can live up to our expectations. Every politician has dirty laundry.
It's funny, in that I know so many people who would never do the things we've come to tolerate from politicians on a regular basis...I don't know how many of them would change if they were ever given the power of an elected official, but I can't imagine it is that hard to find candidates who are free from baggage. (Though, to be fair, some of it could be made up smears to win elections...how many of those good people I mentioned would end up looking just as terrible once their opposition got done with them?)
How much of that is unrealistic expectations, and how much of it is our settling for poor candidates because we've cynically decided it's impossible to achieve more?
This has gotten rather long already, but I did want to add one more thread to the tangle.
I have always valued character in political candidates. That's partly because of a poli-sci class on political psychology, where we explored the ways that personality affected the leadership of various presidents. (It's generally easier to see the difference in presidents, rather than trying to consider specific members of Congress...though we do place undue influence on the position.)
Character is what determines how the President handles the inevitable unexpected crisis. Character determines how well they will work with allies and enemies to get things done. You can study where they stand on the issues, but to be honest our system requires more than one person to get anything done politically...I could handle a President with whom I disagree politically if Congress opposes them (which is part of why I wasn't too worried about Bernie...no matter what his political leanings he'd have had to get legislation through Congress, after all.)
Yet there was one article during the 2016 election that made me reconsider some of my position. It said the Civil Rights Movement was able to accomplish as much as it did because it focused on working with whoever they could, and didn't get bogged down with questions of character. That, to a certain extent, focusing on character was a sign of privilege.
I could see the point, at least about the Civil Rights Movement.
And yet I can't stand this casual belief that character doesn't matter, and the acceptance of lying and cheating so long as someone's political positions match yours.
To tie this in with current events - every day we hear more and more horror stories about sexual harassment. It's kind of overwhelming, and yet it's also long overdue. The things women have been dealing with are so widespread and prevalent that I don't want anyone to feel pressured to stop...but it also contributes to this sense that 'everyone is flawed'.
Power corrupts.
It's like...can't we do better than this? We had Abraham Lincoln and George Washington, surely we can select people who are less...flawed.
Can't we?
So I went back, to my own personal history.
I began my intereset in politics more out of a childish whim than any reasoned knowledge. A decision made while competing with my brother and sister. I did encounter, and even partially accept some of the common beliefs about politics:
All politicians lie. Politics are an ugly, nasty business. Politics is how some incompetent but smooth-talking a$$-kisser gets promoted while better talented, more deserving people get overlooked. Power corrupts - sometimes followed by "and absolute power corrupts absolutely".
At some point, I decided that if every good person just threw their hands up and said "ugh, politics!!!" that would basically leave all the decision making to people who were NOT good. The ones who live up to every negative stereotype regarding power and politics. If we want something different, if we want politics to be better, then we have to be involved.
This raises questions regarding what is 'good' politics and what is 'bad' politics. Where do you draw the line? How do you know when you've been corrupted by power?
As I studied political science, I developed a more nuanced understanding...I think. You see, we distrust politicians partly because we all know it's an act. On some level, at least. Like movie stars and other celebrities, there's the public persona...and it doesn't always match what the person acts like when the cameras and microphones are off. In a small community you can figure out whether someone is genuine or not...but in a nation of over 300 million individuals most of us can't.
The Fables comic books had an interesting claim that elections are like a seduction, which is why Prince Charming did so well. And (like many seducers and politicians) winning the election often involves making promises you can't really keep. And yet we want to be seduced. (Part of Trump's appeal, horrible though he is, was that people felt that they saw the real deal. They distrust the stage persona of a professional politician, and felt more comfortable with Trump - warts and all. That comment, btw, is not meant to excuse or justify voting for Trump. I do think his obvious 'warts' are worse than the hidden 'warts' of his opponents.)
Yet I don't think many politicians believe they are corrupt, or knowingly are passing legislation that will hurt the nation. (I might make an exception for the current Republican tax plan, however. As just one small example of how terrible it is, the potential impact on grad students would be devastating. It seems like they're not even trying to pretend that they care about the rest of us any more.)
Many even got their start because there were real issues they wanted to address (Danica Roem seems like the most recent example.) I suspect that any corruption, if it happens, occurs because of typical human fallacies. Primarily our tendency to confuse policies that are good for us with policies that are good for everyone (after all, you have to win re-election...and if you don't get re-elected how can you help anyone?) and the tendency to believe the ends justifies the means. After all, you know you're right, you know you've got everyone's best interests at heart, you know everything would go great if you could just make your plans a reality - and if people would just stop interfering with you - and what does it matter if you spread false rumors, or mislead the public on what science says about a topic, if those actions help you make the 'right' policies a reality?
That's a rather rich topic all by itself, but it's only part of the tangle I wanted to discuss. So moving along-
Somewhat tied in with the discussion of 'good' politics and 'bad' politics is some assessment of which politicians were 'good' and which were 'bad'.
Which comes perilously close to judging our neighbors. Hmmm. This gets into my Catholic upbringing, which still influences me despite being rather lapsed. So let me rephrase that. I think that "judge not, lest ye be judged" is a reminder that people are inherently complex. If we truly knew someone, inside and out, the way God would, then we would understand and forgive our transgressions. And the forgiveness we want for ourselves is the forgiveness we should give to others. Like in the Lord's Prayer -
forgive us our trespasses,We all judge each other, and in some ways it's inevitable and required. We make decisions, daily, about who we spend time with. Who we cultivate. Who we vote for. Yet I try to lessen any truly harsh judgements by reminding myself that I know only part of anyone's story. The public persona (good or bad) we see on TV gives a very superficial sense of who anyone is. Heck, we don't even know people we've been friends with for decades. Not as well as we think we do, at least. You might figure out 90% of who someone is in a few days, or months, or years...but you can spend the rest of your life learning the other 10%.
as we forgive those
who trespass against us.
And that's another small thread to the tangle...not yet the whole of it.
Sometime around seventh or eighth grade I remember a priest talking to our class about faith, and he described it as an ongoing interaction. The gist of what I recall is this:
Our initial beliefs are often very black and white. Saints and sinners. Good and bad. Then sometimes we start questioning things. We learn that it's more complicated than we thought.
And this is good. The goal, hopefully, is that as you get your questions answered that you gain a stronger, deeper, and more nuanced understanding.
The discussion was related mostly to faith in God, but I think the same can be applied to people (and judging people) as well.
For example, there are three presidents that I would consider the 'best', though granted I haven't exhaustively studied them all and don't know much about the more obscure ones (Chester Arthur, anyone?) Those presidents would be Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, and Franklin Roosevelt.
I feel a bit cliche for saying that, since those are some of the presidents 'anyone' would know...even after they've forgotten whatever they were taught in grade school. And yet they remain well liked and popular for good reason.
George Washington, whose public persona is still influenced by the Cherry Tree Myth, established the tradition of a two-term president. He was the very first president, and he probably could have served longer if he'd chosen to. To have that power and willingly set it aside is a pretty amazing thing. And it helped establish - even solidify - our democratic system at the very onset. Washington giving up power is part of what makes our system strong. It makes us less dependent on a cult of personality, or some specific person being in charge.
Abraham Lincoln, "Honest Abe", who led us through the Civil War and freed the slaves.
And FDR, who led us through the Great Depression and World War II.
Current trends have given us a more nuanced understanding of these men. George Washington owned slaves. Abraham Lincoln may have freed the slaves only because it made political sense at the time (or perhaps he truly believed in abolition but didn't feel it was politically feasible until the end of the Civil War.) FDR ordered the internment of Japanese Americans, broke the tradition of a two term president and tried packing the Supreme Court with his supporters.
None of these men are the heroes we built them up to be. Does that mean they weren't great? Does greatness excuse such behavior? Are we wrong to judge them by our standards, when by the standards of their time they were not unusual? Or perhaps it's even more heroic, to achieve what they have done despite being flawed and imperfect human beings. (And yet that still doesn't make what they did right...)
In Goodwin's book Team of Rivals, she mentions a discussion Abraham Lincoln had on whether George Washington was perfect or not. Lincoln argued that "It makes human nature better to believe that one human being was perfect, that human perfection is possible."
I understand and, to a certain extent, share that sentiment. Not that it's okay to cover up our human frailties in order to keep that mirage...
But the modern world is so very, very cynical. Movies are full of anti-heroes, not heroes. Writers try to show nuance and depth by making flawed human beings, which sometimes works well and sometimes just makes the main character rather distasteful...and the cumulative result is kind of depressing.
It makes you feel like there's no hope, whatsoever, of finding someone who can live up to our expectations. Every politician has dirty laundry.
It's funny, in that I know so many people who would never do the things we've come to tolerate from politicians on a regular basis...I don't know how many of them would change if they were ever given the power of an elected official, but I can't imagine it is that hard to find candidates who are free from baggage. (Though, to be fair, some of it could be made up smears to win elections...how many of those good people I mentioned would end up looking just as terrible once their opposition got done with them?)
How much of that is unrealistic expectations, and how much of it is our settling for poor candidates because we've cynically decided it's impossible to achieve more?
This has gotten rather long already, but I did want to add one more thread to the tangle.
I have always valued character in political candidates. That's partly because of a poli-sci class on political psychology, where we explored the ways that personality affected the leadership of various presidents. (It's generally easier to see the difference in presidents, rather than trying to consider specific members of Congress...though we do place undue influence on the position.)
Character is what determines how the President handles the inevitable unexpected crisis. Character determines how well they will work with allies and enemies to get things done. You can study where they stand on the issues, but to be honest our system requires more than one person to get anything done politically...I could handle a President with whom I disagree politically if Congress opposes them (which is part of why I wasn't too worried about Bernie...no matter what his political leanings he'd have had to get legislation through Congress, after all.)
Yet there was one article during the 2016 election that made me reconsider some of my position. It said the Civil Rights Movement was able to accomplish as much as it did because it focused on working with whoever they could, and didn't get bogged down with questions of character. That, to a certain extent, focusing on character was a sign of privilege.
I could see the point, at least about the Civil Rights Movement.
And yet I can't stand this casual belief that character doesn't matter, and the acceptance of lying and cheating so long as someone's political positions match yours.
To tie this in with current events - every day we hear more and more horror stories about sexual harassment. It's kind of overwhelming, and yet it's also long overdue. The things women have been dealing with are so widespread and prevalent that I don't want anyone to feel pressured to stop...but it also contributes to this sense that 'everyone is flawed'.
Power corrupts.
It's like...can't we do better than this? We had Abraham Lincoln and George Washington, surely we can select people who are less...flawed.
Can't we?
No comments:
Post a Comment