I Was Wrong

It's hard for me to admit it, but that's the reality and I have to fess up.

I believed that notwithstanding the corruption and immorality in which they participated, politicians were basically good people, like the rest of us. Any missteps simply reflected their humanity. As I said. They were like the rest of us, and they were basically good people.

I used to believe that their major advantages over us – the ones that helped them to succeed as our representatives – were that they were knowledgeable about the way government should work and the way it does work. And they were well informed about the issues that confronted us – so much so that they could lead us to a higher level of humanity, and fruitful participation in world affairs, and they would do so even if they had to disregard our views in the quest of our betterment.ⁱ I believed that their actions would be well-considered and the result of honest deliberation and the agreement of all parties.

My failure resulted from trust. Like all good liberals,ⁱⁱ I believed that human nature was something that was inherently good, and would lead us to better ourselves. And I believed that our leaders actually wanted to encourage us in this aim. Perhaps some do, but more and more I see them as the minority.

So however sad it made me, I was only a little surprised when I saw a headline in an inner section of the Wall Street Journal todayⁱⁱⁱ that read: “Senate Coalition Ends, Independent Democrats Shun GOP as Threats of Primary Election Loom Large.” As it turns out, the article was addressing the situation in the New York State Senate, not the national Senate, but the principles are the same. I didn't read more than the first two paragraphs because I know the Journal to be as opinionated as all papers, and, knowing its politics, the rest of the article was predictable.^iv And I suspect that the facts it described were true, though I may have questioned the conclusions the reporter drew.^v

Actually, although I've always tried to repress it,^vi the truth is that we get what we deserve. And in one respect our representatives are just like us: their main philosophy is “I'm for me first.”

The first rule of politics is “Get elected!” The second is “Prepare for the next election.” If, in order to be reelected, you vote for something beneficial to your community, so much the better – especially if, because of that, more of your constituents will vote for you next time – but even so, that isn't nearly as important as whether the legislation improves the lot of your donors or, better still, you.

And it's also important to be sure that any high-minded legislation – designed to require citizens to help other groups get what they view as benefits^vii – doesn't apply to you.^viii Exemption from the laws for which you vote is often required.^ix People should do what you say,^x not what you do. Because of the importance of your position, you're entitled to some benefits they'll lack. And taxpayers should be generous, especially to influential people and voting blocs, so if they don't see it that way, you should be generous for them. Benefits for large groups are certain to earn you their votes, and that's what it's all about .

So where was I wrong? I was too trusting. My belief in human nature was misplaced. The idea that politicians would impose on us the measures needed to improve our country were naïve. As I noted before, they're just like us and our inclinations are too venal. And the pols follow our lead. If the polls indicate that the public opposes something that would help it,^xi there's no politician who will vote for it – unless there's something in it for him or his supporters. And if, because it will be useful to vote for the legislation, he mustn't risk alienating the voters, so it's important to support some amendment that they'll see as benefiting them^xii – whether it does so or not. The politicians don't lead us to the Good. Only to their Good. Otherwise they follow us wherever we go.

Perhaps it's cynicism, but I'd always assumed that their basic inclination was to make things work. After all, as Bismarck said,^xiii “Politics is the art of the possible.” But less than two years later he said, “He who has his thumb on the purse has the power.”^xiv And that's the message the policians picked up on. I wasn't cynical enough. Doing the possible is not the goal. The purse^xv and the power are paramount. Doing the possible is counterproductive if it muddies the message that the voters want to hear. Ideological purity is to be preferred over cooperation with those having a different point of view with only two exceptions: when the cooperation will bring the politician or his backers a particular benefit, or when the polls indicate that it is for the purpose of achieving something that the voters want and which will prompt their support in the next election.

I trusted our representatives to combine their corruption with some regard for the voters as well as their votes. I was mistaken. It won't happen again.

 

Next episode: “How To Lose Friends And Influence Nobody" – No more Mr Nice Guy

I        “[Bill] Maher stated that Obama should forget about trying to get 60 votes for it, 'he only needs 51.' 'Forget getting the sixty votes or sixty percent — sixty percent of people don't believe in evolution in this country — he just needs to drag them to it, like I said, they're stupid; get health care done, with or without them.'” I may not agree with Maher on the issue, but the principle of politicians following their consciences rather than the views of their constituents exemplifies what I thought was the approach of most of our “representatives.” It's the “liberal” approach. Do for (to?) the people what you think is good for them, whether they like it or not. But I had hoped for more good will than I see there. And I had hoped that politicians would have a higher regard for the American People than Mr. Maher seems to have.

ii       I may have lapsed but that's the way I was brought up, and some beliefs from early childhood are hard to shake.

iii      Today is June 26, 2014.

iv       Since I didn't read the article I can't be absolutely sure I'm right, but I assume the Democrats were blamed for their partisanship. As I suggested, however, all papers prejudge situations and their reporters write stories that reflect the paper's slant. Had the article appeared in the New York Times with the same headline, the blame would have been laid at the feet of the Republicans.

v        When consulting the media for information (and when reading web-sites as well) the most important first step is to try to determine the source's perspectives and its biases. Everything it says – even if it sounds like a simple recitation of facts – will be spun to correspond, and should be understood to reflect those preconceived notions.

vi        And I was fooling myself when I did so.

vii     However harmful those “benefits” may be after the bureaucracy begins formulating rules for its administration. It's possible that they may be more restrictive than beneficial – but they sound good.

viii     You don't want for yourself the idiotic things uninformed voters demand. It doesn't matter if you restrict the voters. They're asking for it.

ix       They elected you. They deserve you. Make the rhetoric appealing and it doesn't matter what the facts are. But make sure that you don't suffer from their poor judgment. Leave an escape hatch for yourself.

x         Make them believe it was their idea.

xi       Never forget that the better the medicine is for you the worse it tastes, and the more you rebel at its administration.

xii      A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down.

xiii     In German: “Die Politik ist die Lehre vom Möglichen.” August 11, 1867. Cited inWikipedia.

xiv      May 21, 1869. Also said in German.

xv       Not just the money, but the votes that get them the job that will bring them the power and the money.