Just Politics
a short note on conversation and compromise
"If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." -Plato
Politics is only just when it is based on compromise arrived at through conversation. In a good compromise, everyone gets some of what they want and everyone is a little bit unhappy.
Contemporary politics has devolved into microtyrannies where the party in power routinely imposes their will on the other party or the populace through coercion. Coercion is the opposite of compromise and, regardless of the outcome, can never be considered to be just. This modus operandi is emblematic of both of the main parties in the US and probably of all current parties in power globally.
It was not always thus. The word, 'parliament', literally means getting together to talk. The word arose in popularity around the time of the signing of the Magna Carta. Parliaments would be held between the king (the government) and the dukes (the governed). They would discuss, for example, the raising of taxes, usually for war. The dukes would be taxed only if they agreed to be taxed. In other words, they had to be convinced of the justness of the war or other goal and to the quantity of funding needed before agreeing to pool their resources for the cause.
Conversation and compromise are inconvenient. It takes time to have a discussion. You don't get everything you want if you come to the table open to hearing the other party. It is vastly more convenient to rule by fiat. Get rid of opposition by ignoring or circumventing it. This is how a just government can become a tyranny. This is the tendency and trend of politics in the US and globally.
And, it's understandable that politics has become so. Say what you will about politicians, they are often smart and thoughtful people. They exerted a great deal of effort to get into the position where they get to make decisions on behalf of others. They were probably idealistic about their dreams for a better and more just society and were motivated by those dreams to seek office. Once in power, they can theoretically justify to themselves imposing their will because they have spent a lot of time thinking deeply about the issues they raise. People who disagree simply haven't spent as much time thinking about the issues. It's more efficient just to do as they say.
The aesthetic of efficiency as a virtue is part of the problem. The United States is a very corporate country. Our culture and politics are very mercantile and capitalist in ways we may not even notice. Efficiency as a virtue is one of the ways this manifests. Efficiency is essential in business. Inefficient businesses die while efficient competitors thrive.
But efficiency is less useful in politics. Executive orders are efficient. Using a constitutional loophole about interstate commerce to reframe an initiative as a tax is an efficient hack. These maneuvers are clever. These maneuvers are efficient. But are these maneuvers just?
Is efficiency in government decisionmaking a good thing? If the alternatives are a) no decision on a given topic or b) a fiat decision, should we prefer b) because something is better than nothing?
That’s it for this short missive. My promise in these pages has always been to ask questions that hopefully make the reader think. That's why I don't propose solutions. As Picasso said, "Computers are useless. They can only give you answers." I aim to be useful. Now, back to my computer, until next time. I look forward to your comments.
Great to have you back..
Thank you
No.