Political campaigns tend to highlight a near universal view of politics; namely that it ain't good and good people don't need to do it. This perverse notion of politics is even more in evidence during presidential campaigns. The irony is that not only is politics one of, if not the highest, goods in liberal democracy, it is also an inescapable 24/7/365 phenomenon. When politicians, pundits, journalist, and the proverbial "man on the street" talk about politics, they treat it as at best a "necessary evil." Why?Politics actually refers to the process by which binding community decisions are made. In a democracy we pride ourselves on the notion that in our politics these binding decisions are made directly or indirectly by the people, the voters. This means that any activity related to making these decisions is by definition political activity. Compare this to the ubiquitous plea by virtually everyone to "get politics out of everything, including governing." Americans assume that the degree to which any decision is political is the degree to which such decisions are flawed or suboptimal.
The present economic crisis has lead everyone on all sides to claim that it is wrong to "play politics" with the economy. Candidates who weigh in on the crisis are imagined to be putting their "political" interests ahead of the national interest. Silly me, I thought democracies determined the national interest through politics? John McCain understood the appeal of claiming to have suspended his "political" campaign to do his job as a Senator and a national leader by working on the bail out legislation. In other words, public policy making and politics should not be mixed. Leaders in a democracy are those willing to suspend democracy. Huh? Apparently, despite our immense pride as Americans living in a free democratic society, we believe nonetheless that democratic leadership is an oxymoron. Do you see the absurdity of this yet?
What is implied by the notion that democratic politics must yield to the public interest when things get tough? What does this say about how Americans see themselves? Doesn't this imply that absent crisis, Americans routinely pursue selfish interests without concern for the public good? Doesn't it imply that we are only interested in democratic governance when the stakes are low? Are we subconsciously undermining our democratic creedal principles? If America is an idea (ostensibly the idea of a liberal democracy), then how can we be faithful to and proud of our creed while at the same time disdainful and disgusted with its actual expressions?
Those who say we shouldn't "politicize" serious issues, like the bail out plan, seem to be saying that on major issues everyone must fall in line and do the "right thing." Indeed, those who insist on "bickering" about the details are called petty, political, and unpatriotic. But isn't the core of democratic society it's faith in the capacity of the democratic process to determine the "right thing?" If so, why is virtually everyone so eager to see politicians stop acting "political" and just do their jobs? Would anybody plead with a doctor to stop being medical and just cure people?
While it's human nature to surrender individual prerogatives to a compelling leader or plea in the heat of an emergency, isn't it also dangerous in a society founded on individual rights and popular rule? Don't folks notice that this constant, pervasive, and cynical assumption about politics feeds on itself? Because politicians and activists know that voters do not even give them the benefit of the doubt and that voters reflexively assume political motives are selfish motives, politicians (eager to make an authentic connection with voters) have to raise the stakes and exaggerate to need for their ideas as well as the calamity that would result from their competitors' ideas. This competitive incentive to exaggerate also pervades media reporting and analysis of politics, especially in commercial media outlets facing their own competitive pressure. Favored politicians are statesmen willing to rise above politics, while disfavored politicians are slaves to the evil "special interests."
I think we need a new word or phrase for what is too often labeled "politics." Are we too lazy to add a qualifier? Can't we distinguish between good and bad politics? Can't we see how young Americans (who don't get sufficient civics education in school and are not being well served by the media and conventional disdain for politics) might fall prey to this cynical reductionism, leaving them in double jeopardy; cynical and ignorant?