Politics doesn't have to be dirty. In fact, it is most successful when it's not.
This might come as a surprise to some, but the political process is actually most effective when shrewd negotiators attempt to find ways to advance their agenda while maintaining the ability to cooperate both with those in their own camp and those across the aisle. The most effective politicians around the world have been those who can further the cause they stand for and at the same time maintain the respect of those outside their camp and even earn praise from their opponents.
But Americans generally see politics as a dark art and politicians as corrupt liars and backstabbers. This actually comes from a misunderstanding of the political process. Politics are about balancing an staggering number of diverse interests and opinions both those of your opponents and within your own party. It makes it very hard to make definitive promises or assurances.
Example: I am a Democrat who wants to see education funding increased. I campaigned on it. John is a Republican who is up for re-election, and while in a secure district, wants a little push to help out and who has proposed legislation that would put caps on government spending increases per year, including education. John has to walk a careful line talking to Democrats in the Year of the Tea Party Extremist considering his upcoming election, so he and I talk behind closed doors. He assures me he will vote for an exception to education spending caps in the upcoming budget after his re-election if I will vote for his overall plan to curtail spending year to year. We hash it out, we agree, and then coming out of the room he snarls at me for the camera. That next week, I vote for his increase to the howling protest of my constituents, but I can't say anything about the upcoming deal. Meanwhile a few months later, he votes for my exception. He gets what he stands for – spending limits. I get what I stand for – education. We both have a working relationship that understands each other.
To the outside viewer who only sees politics in the here and now, I look like a traitor. He looks a bit like a flip flopper. I look like I broke a campaign promise because I made a long term deal that the public doesn't know about while he eventually looks like he consorted with the enemy and committed the awful sin of compromising with a Democrat – even though he achieved a victory for the GOP agenda.
This is good politics, even if people see it as somewhat shady because they only see the short view. We're working together despite diverse interests.
So what is bad politics?
Bad politics is when politicians stop actually engaging in the political process of collaborative leadership and wage war. This war destroys more than it creates, and places victory over any cost.
Slash and Burn
I talked briefly about this in regards to the recalls, but I want to go into a little more depth. It is normal and constructive politics for the party in power to push their agenda, and to do faster and with less concession to opponents the more control of the legislature they have. But the conversation must never cease. The minority party must never be ignored or disenfranchised.
Slash and Burn politics prioritizes legislative victory at the expense of maintaining a constructive, or even civil, relationship with members of the opposition and/or constituents. It is a 'damn the torpedoes' approach to trying to get things through without unpleasant details of having to listen, compromise, negotiate, or deal with any consequence that doesn't affect re-election.
It's called slash and burn because it destroys the relationships between politicians that are necessary to actually do politics. If you read my example above, we have a balancing act going on where John and I have to be able to talk to one another and discuss how we can balance our party's interests while securing each others votes. If the Republicans have strength in the legislature, John's not going to give me as much, but he won't exclude me. He knows that some day he will need me. He doesn't want to burn that bridge. It's not just a matter of whether John CAN achieve something, it's HOW that thing is achieved that is important to the long term ability of his party to be effective in government.
What happens when a party decides to use slash & burn? Well look at Wisconsin. Protests, procedural loopholes, recalls, enraged voters, politicians that don't trust the other side to not poison their food much less keep their word. The very process of politics in Wisconsin is now toxic. No matter what you think of the goals of either party, the method of enacting those goals by the current Wisconsin GOP was slash and burn. Even after the Republican victories, the Republicans have to use dirty trick after dirty trick to get things done because nobody trusts them. It has destroyed all good faith in the legislature.
Politicians are NEVER supposed to disenfranchise the minority party. To do so invites procedural war and carries the echos of dictatorship. When the minority feels completely abandoned, they will use any technicality to be heard. They were, after all, elected to represent a portion of the population that is NOT in the majority. If the majority burns the bridges and slashes the lines of communication, they will do whatever they can to regain some influence that their constituents put them there to fight for. In Wisconsin's case, that was to do what Abraham Lincoln did for the Republicans years earlier – bail. Get the hell out of dodge so the Republicans would have reason to … engage in politics.
If your party is engaging in slash and burn tactics – not just leveraging their majority, but actually completely disregarding the other side and ignoring popular polls – then they are in the wrong. Elections don't give a universal mandate to the majority party to act unilaterally. They give that party the OPPORTUNITY to LEAD. Leadership includes engaging those who were not in your own choir before the votes were cast.
Procedural War
The second kind of bad politics is when a party wages war on the process of democracy itself. I know, I know, it sounds melodramatic. You can almost hear the movie guy speaking in that low voice.
“In a word, where war has been waged on Democracy itself...”
But there are methods by which parties can do just that. We should always be very very suspicious of any legislative or executive act that changes the political process. That isn't to say that changes to our system should never happen, just that we should be very suspicious of them when they do. Unlike criminal law, we should assume any change to our political system is guilty until proven innocent. This is because there are far too many partisan short term advantages that can come from tweaking the process that in the long term hurt us as a society.
What do I mean 'political process'. Well, here's a short list: Voting, constitutions and constitutional amendments, redistricting, voter registration, process of appointing political positions, elections – when and how and why. This list isn't exhaustive, but you get the point.
Again, Wisconsin's current Republicans are a good example of what not to do. The recent voter registration law has no actual foundation in it's proposed reason for enactment. There is no voter significant fraud in Wisconsin. No evidence was provided that voter fraud was above the normal allowable minute incidents of it that tend to exist everywhere in Democracy. It is, after all, impossible to completely eliminate systemic abuse. More importantly, the small number of cases of voter fraud that DID were almost entirely absentee ballots which would not have been remedied from a photographic voter ID.
So why was it done? Because the process of getting a voter ID has been made difficult for anyone who doesn't have a long term residence. That is to say, students, new voters, and the poor among some who tend to be more transient living in apartments as opposed to homes. These voters also tend to be Democrats.
This law was a direct attack on the democratic process in Wisconsin designed to favor Republican voters. If you can't convince the majority, make sure they can't vote against you, right? This legislation cost the state millions and was, even on it's surface, targeting a negligible number of fraud cases. It made registering to vote in Wisconsin harder than anywhere else in the nation for reasons that really come down to attempting to protect the Republican senators from their own unpopular choices in upcoming recalls.
For a party that preaches individual responsibility, it is nauseating to see these men and women willing to sabotage the actual political process to hold onto their seats – to make it harder for Wisconsinites to participate in elections simply to avoid being recalled for decisions they knew were unpopular. Where is the personal responsibility? Where is the integrity? This isn't politics, it's sabotage.
THIS Republican, not ALL Republicans
Both parties, but Republican in particular, have gotten really good at confusing the idea of loyalty to ideals and party with loyalty to the individual holding a particular political post. We need to become more effective at looking at the specific people that hold office. Instead of seeing the animal on their lapel and making our decision accordingly, we need to look at what they are actually doing in office. Are they representing our values as conservatives or progressives or are they doing something we can't and shouldn't abide.
Much of my fighting here in Wisconsin has been to convince Republicans that Scott Walker's politics are, frankly, not Republican. He's a terrible leader who has hijacked the Republican ideals and is forcing an agenda of unilateral dictatorship on the state that hat polarized the people of Wisconsin and enraged the population against him who, today, stands 59% in opposition to his governorship.
Republicans don't suck. Despite what some of my colleagues would say, Republicans have some strong arguments and can have great things to contribute to the political process and dialogue. But THESE Republicans have turned the process of working together to build a better state and a better nation into an all out war to win at any costs despite the evolving will of the people and the elected presence of other points of view. They have climbed an ideological mountain and are listening to nobody as they move forward, impaling themselves on the fevered chants of irrational Tea Party extremists who only seem satisfied when a liberal or Democrat suffers even if it means dragging the whole economy and political culture down into the dust to inflict that pain.
There are plenty of Republicans who understand this is not what it is to be conservative. They need to start speaking up, they need to start taking a stand to restore the integrity, honesty, and conviction of the values they hold.
Regardless of what happens here in Wisconsin, I encourage you to watch for Slash and Burn and Procedural War in your state and in our nation's capitol. Call it out and oppose it vehemently when you see it. Don't tolerate it from your party or the opposition. This is not the way we move forward. This is not how we restore American greatness. This road leads only to a bleak, hostile, and polarized America ripe for exploitation and easily undermined by interests that serve none of us.
This might come as a surprise to some, but the political process is actually most effective when shrewd negotiators attempt to find ways to advance their agenda while maintaining the ability to cooperate both with those in their own camp and those across the aisle. The most effective politicians around the world have been those who can further the cause they stand for and at the same time maintain the respect of those outside their camp and even earn praise from their opponents.
But Americans generally see politics as a dark art and politicians as corrupt liars and backstabbers. This actually comes from a misunderstanding of the political process. Politics are about balancing an staggering number of diverse interests and opinions both those of your opponents and within your own party. It makes it very hard to make definitive promises or assurances.
Example: I am a Democrat who wants to see education funding increased. I campaigned on it. John is a Republican who is up for re-election, and while in a secure district, wants a little push to help out and who has proposed legislation that would put caps on government spending increases per year, including education. John has to walk a careful line talking to Democrats in the Year of the Tea Party Extremist considering his upcoming election, so he and I talk behind closed doors. He assures me he will vote for an exception to education spending caps in the upcoming budget after his re-election if I will vote for his overall plan to curtail spending year to year. We hash it out, we agree, and then coming out of the room he snarls at me for the camera. That next week, I vote for his increase to the howling protest of my constituents, but I can't say anything about the upcoming deal. Meanwhile a few months later, he votes for my exception. He gets what he stands for – spending limits. I get what I stand for – education. We both have a working relationship that understands each other.
To the outside viewer who only sees politics in the here and now, I look like a traitor. He looks a bit like a flip flopper. I look like I broke a campaign promise because I made a long term deal that the public doesn't know about while he eventually looks like he consorted with the enemy and committed the awful sin of compromising with a Democrat – even though he achieved a victory for the GOP agenda.
This is good politics, even if people see it as somewhat shady because they only see the short view. We're working together despite diverse interests.
So what is bad politics?
Bad politics is when politicians stop actually engaging in the political process of collaborative leadership and wage war. This war destroys more than it creates, and places victory over any cost.
Slash and Burn
I talked briefly about this in regards to the recalls, but I want to go into a little more depth. It is normal and constructive politics for the party in power to push their agenda, and to do faster and with less concession to opponents the more control of the legislature they have. But the conversation must never cease. The minority party must never be ignored or disenfranchised.
Slash and Burn politics prioritizes legislative victory at the expense of maintaining a constructive, or even civil, relationship with members of the opposition and/or constituents. It is a 'damn the torpedoes' approach to trying to get things through without unpleasant details of having to listen, compromise, negotiate, or deal with any consequence that doesn't affect re-election.
It's called slash and burn because it destroys the relationships between politicians that are necessary to actually do politics. If you read my example above, we have a balancing act going on where John and I have to be able to talk to one another and discuss how we can balance our party's interests while securing each others votes. If the Republicans have strength in the legislature, John's not going to give me as much, but he won't exclude me. He knows that some day he will need me. He doesn't want to burn that bridge. It's not just a matter of whether John CAN achieve something, it's HOW that thing is achieved that is important to the long term ability of his party to be effective in government.
What happens when a party decides to use slash & burn? Well look at Wisconsin. Protests, procedural loopholes, recalls, enraged voters, politicians that don't trust the other side to not poison their food much less keep their word. The very process of politics in Wisconsin is now toxic. No matter what you think of the goals of either party, the method of enacting those goals by the current Wisconsin GOP was slash and burn. Even after the Republican victories, the Republicans have to use dirty trick after dirty trick to get things done because nobody trusts them. It has destroyed all good faith in the legislature.
Politicians are NEVER supposed to disenfranchise the minority party. To do so invites procedural war and carries the echos of dictatorship. When the minority feels completely abandoned, they will use any technicality to be heard. They were, after all, elected to represent a portion of the population that is NOT in the majority. If the majority burns the bridges and slashes the lines of communication, they will do whatever they can to regain some influence that their constituents put them there to fight for. In Wisconsin's case, that was to do what Abraham Lincoln did for the Republicans years earlier – bail. Get the hell out of dodge so the Republicans would have reason to … engage in politics.
If your party is engaging in slash and burn tactics – not just leveraging their majority, but actually completely disregarding the other side and ignoring popular polls – then they are in the wrong. Elections don't give a universal mandate to the majority party to act unilaterally. They give that party the OPPORTUNITY to LEAD. Leadership includes engaging those who were not in your own choir before the votes were cast.
Procedural War
The second kind of bad politics is when a party wages war on the process of democracy itself. I know, I know, it sounds melodramatic. You can almost hear the movie guy speaking in that low voice.
“In a word, where war has been waged on Democracy itself...”
But there are methods by which parties can do just that. We should always be very very suspicious of any legislative or executive act that changes the political process. That isn't to say that changes to our system should never happen, just that we should be very suspicious of them when they do. Unlike criminal law, we should assume any change to our political system is guilty until proven innocent. This is because there are far too many partisan short term advantages that can come from tweaking the process that in the long term hurt us as a society.
What do I mean 'political process'. Well, here's a short list: Voting, constitutions and constitutional amendments, redistricting, voter registration, process of appointing political positions, elections – when and how and why. This list isn't exhaustive, but you get the point.
Again, Wisconsin's current Republicans are a good example of what not to do. The recent voter registration law has no actual foundation in it's proposed reason for enactment. There is no voter significant fraud in Wisconsin. No evidence was provided that voter fraud was above the normal allowable minute incidents of it that tend to exist everywhere in Democracy. It is, after all, impossible to completely eliminate systemic abuse. More importantly, the small number of cases of voter fraud that DID were almost entirely absentee ballots which would not have been remedied from a photographic voter ID.
So why was it done? Because the process of getting a voter ID has been made difficult for anyone who doesn't have a long term residence. That is to say, students, new voters, and the poor among some who tend to be more transient living in apartments as opposed to homes. These voters also tend to be Democrats.
This law was a direct attack on the democratic process in Wisconsin designed to favor Republican voters. If you can't convince the majority, make sure they can't vote against you, right? This legislation cost the state millions and was, even on it's surface, targeting a negligible number of fraud cases. It made registering to vote in Wisconsin harder than anywhere else in the nation for reasons that really come down to attempting to protect the Republican senators from their own unpopular choices in upcoming recalls.
For a party that preaches individual responsibility, it is nauseating to see these men and women willing to sabotage the actual political process to hold onto their seats – to make it harder for Wisconsinites to participate in elections simply to avoid being recalled for decisions they knew were unpopular. Where is the personal responsibility? Where is the integrity? This isn't politics, it's sabotage.
THIS Republican, not ALL Republicans
Both parties, but Republican in particular, have gotten really good at confusing the idea of loyalty to ideals and party with loyalty to the individual holding a particular political post. We need to become more effective at looking at the specific people that hold office. Instead of seeing the animal on their lapel and making our decision accordingly, we need to look at what they are actually doing in office. Are they representing our values as conservatives or progressives or are they doing something we can't and shouldn't abide.
Much of my fighting here in Wisconsin has been to convince Republicans that Scott Walker's politics are, frankly, not Republican. He's a terrible leader who has hijacked the Republican ideals and is forcing an agenda of unilateral dictatorship on the state that hat polarized the people of Wisconsin and enraged the population against him who, today, stands 59% in opposition to his governorship.
Republicans don't suck. Despite what some of my colleagues would say, Republicans have some strong arguments and can have great things to contribute to the political process and dialogue. But THESE Republicans have turned the process of working together to build a better state and a better nation into an all out war to win at any costs despite the evolving will of the people and the elected presence of other points of view. They have climbed an ideological mountain and are listening to nobody as they move forward, impaling themselves on the fevered chants of irrational Tea Party extremists who only seem satisfied when a liberal or Democrat suffers even if it means dragging the whole economy and political culture down into the dust to inflict that pain.
There are plenty of Republicans who understand this is not what it is to be conservative. They need to start speaking up, they need to start taking a stand to restore the integrity, honesty, and conviction of the values they hold.
Regardless of what happens here in Wisconsin, I encourage you to watch for Slash and Burn and Procedural War in your state and in our nation's capitol. Call it out and oppose it vehemently when you see it. Don't tolerate it from your party or the opposition. This is not the way we move forward. This is not how we restore American greatness. This road leads only to a bleak, hostile, and polarized America ripe for exploitation and easily undermined by interests that serve none of us.
Maybe I'm naive, but I don't understand why you and John have to have your deals behind closed doors. Nor why John has to snarl at you for the cameras. Wouldn't it be more beneficial for you to openly engage in compromise, perhaps as an example to others? I think that's the problem. The "back room deals" have become so much the norm, that without them, politicians don't know what to do.
ReplyDeleteOk, going back to my fantasy world now. :)