I imagine that there are many ways to view politics. I have offered in this blog a partnership
view. That is, we, through the compacted
agreement of the founders, are parties to a grand partnership in which all of our
ultimate interests are bound together, at least in the long run. Sure, we have our individual interests that
oftentimes materialize over short-term events, but in pursuing them, federalism
offers an ideal: maintain those
interests within the parameters of the common good. I have also written that while one hopes for
the best, one needs to prepare for the worst.
We know that not all of our fellow citizens abide by this general
ideal. On the contrary, many vigorously
pursue goals and aims that are contrary to the common good.
We have the most obvious cases of criminal pursuits such as
fraud, embezzlement, murder, drug dealing, computer hacking, and the like. A bit disheartening is that in our popular
culture, we might glorify such behavior.
This has always been a disposition, but under a natural rights era, the
disposition to do so has become less guilt-ridden. There are cases not so well known, but
equally distasteful of legal activities when people in power or holding certain
assets allow themselves to take advantage of legal means to advance personal
interests at the expense of the common good.
The cases of Wall Street executives who received generous bonuses during
the months of the financial crisis of 2008 come to mind or the bank executives
who received bailouts from the government but then refused to use those funds
to support capital investment projects.
We blame the legislation – of which those executives surely played a
role through their lobbying activities – but doesn’t some blame need to be placed
on those who took advantage? So
prevalent is this type of behavior that any allusion to a partnership is
considered merely an illusion.
Samuel P. Huntington some years ago referred to politics as a
Hobbesian world: “unrelenting competition among social forces – between man and
man, family and family, clan and clan, region and region, class and class – a competition
unmediated by more comprehensive political organization.”[1] In its raw state, this is an amoral arrangement;
that is, there is no good or bad, it just is.
But there is an impractical angle; how do a people get anything done in
such a social environment? How can one
plan, invest, dedicate him/herself when a constant turmoil surrounds the individual,
the family, or any other group? The obvious
need is to impose some sense of morality and this is what successful societies
and polities have been able to do. But
there are some (pre)requisites. Morality
presupposes the continued presence of trust born from predictability. Predictability emanates from repetitive
patterns of behavior and activities.
That is where the importance of institutions becomes apparent. Huntington identifies the interests of public
institutions – those established and maintained by our political apparatus – as
the public interest. A healthy
maintenance of the public interest is what allows a people to manage the
Hobbesian world out there. My point is
that part of that process, a central part, is to construct a view that holds
to, believes in, an ideal. That is what
federalism provides and the natural rights construct, I am afraid,
undermines. But let me continue with
Huntington’s analysis.
Huntington goes on to admit that ideals and values have been
used to bolster the trust factor, to assist in the formulation and maintenance
of public institutions. The problem is
that these constructs have been either too vague and general or too specific in
their implementation. Other constructs
include the “divine rights of kings” view or Marxism. By their nature, ideals tend to be broad as
they are to be applied to a vast variety of situations. And then when they are applied by political
actors, they tend to be interpreted in too specific terms so as to offer
advantage to those actors. No; the
solution to this lack of functionality is not to rely on constructs, but to
count on political institutions advancing their own interests. Let the president protect the Presidency, let
Congress protect Congress, let the Supreme Court protect the court system. In this way, a competitive arena is
established (by the way, this reflects a federalist value for countervailing powers)
and, by doing so, the regularization of political action can be established and
preserved. In short, it is these
institutions defining and protecting their institutional interests that define
for the polity the public interest.
An important distinction, though, needs to be made. An institutional interest is not the
interests of those who are involved in the institution. Individuals die; institutions, which are
successful, do not die. Therefore,
individual interests are relatively short-lived; institutional interests are
long-lived. This is what I refer to when
I write about our long-term interests. I
disagree a bit with Huntington. He
refers to individual interests as short-lived.
I take his point, but being a person who has had my share of years on
this planet, I can definitely identify interests I had as being short-termed
and interests that I have had and continue to have as long-term. I can also see that pursuing some short-term
interests interfered, threatened, and even destroyed some long-term interests. Yes; I will die, but I am glad that in my
life I respected important long-term interests.
Today I can enjoy the continued benefits of having been able to do
that. It also allows me to further
appreciate Huntington’s greater point: that a society and its members need to
respect our collective long-term interests as exercised through our institution
and why this current presidential election cycle is causing some deep rooted
concerns over what I see unfolding on my TV.
That is also why the complete obstruction by Congress of the president
and his agenda has also been worrisome.
Short-term interest of the opposition party can make the system
dysfunctional, which has repercussions in the electorate. Can the current atmosphere of the
presidential campaigns be the manifestations of such strategies; the short-term
threatening the long-term interests of our polity?
I believe Huntington captures this sentiment in the
following:
In another sense, however, the legitimacy
of governmental actions can be sought in the extent to which they reflect the
interests of governmental institutions.
In contrast to the theory of representative government, under this
concept governmental institutions derive their legitimacy and authority not
from the extent to which they represent the interests of the people or of any
other group, but to the extent to which they have distinct interests of their
own apart from all other groups. … [For example, t]he interests of the president
… may coincide partially and temporarily first with those of one group and then
with those of another. But the interests
of the Presidency … coincide with no one else.
The president’s power derives not from his representation of class,
group, regional, or popular interests, but rather from the fact that he
represents none of these. The
presidential perspective is unique to the Presidency.[2]
Huntington goes on to argue that this level of institutional
protection is what furnishes realistic expectations that in turn allow trust
and ultimately morality to our otherwise “dog-eat-dog” world. It is this respect for institutions that is
missing in parts of the world where we see one turmoil replacing another and
where outside intervention seems to have no effect. “Their political cultures are often said to
be marked by suspicion, jealousy, and latent and actual hostility toward
everyone who is not a member of the family, the village, or, perhaps, the
tribe.”[3]
An interesting study is that of societies who have gone from
being traditional – that is, lacking modern institutional arrangements – to being
modern. Japan is one such society. Can one view Japan’s activities prior to
World War II in this light? Still and
all, Japan offers a model of how this transition can be done successfully. Are there any models of the reverse? For example, is the US, as exemplified by our
current politics, showing the way toward a “traditional” political landscape? I don’t for a minute believe this, but when a
candidate is offering a “cult of personality” form of campaigning, do we see a
drift toward something unsavory? Stay
tuned.
No comments:
Post a Comment