Political Communication and Reform  

I think the connections between Obama, Wright and Ayers are tenuous at best. Moreover, I’m not convinced at all that this changes Obama’s status as a good candidate. But let’s do a little thought experiment to see if there’s parity. So, let’s say that McCain’s long time pastor advocated some similar, but opposite rhetoric on race from the right that would make you uncomfortable. In addition, let’s also say that early in his career McCain attended a political dinner at the house of a person who attempted to kill anti-war activists. How would you view this?

I wouldn’t care too much. The reason I wouldn’t care, just as I don’t care in the case of Obama’s connections to such people, is that politicians, in order to get to the place in politics that they do, must be ruthlessly goal-directed. You don’t get to be a politician at that level by acting on a moral code, or at the very least you must compromise your goals often for the sake of the big picture You are constantly saying things you don’t believe, or have no opinion, and looking for political connections to help you further your political career. It is the reality of our democracy and of how actual democracies work.

Moreover, sophisticated politicians and observers have access to the following rational. They may view themselves as representing the people and doing whatever it takes to win, for winning, is indicative that the right view has prevailed. Or, for the more realistic, that the right view has a better chance of prevailing, maybe not all the time, but more often than not. An analogy might be a lawyer making an argument that they find wrong, but advancing it anyway because it will convince a judge or jury. They trust the system to make the decision about the argument trusting the system as a tool for getting it right more often than not. Ben Franklin said something similar, that the right view will prevail in open debate. It is understandable, although perhaps ultimately incorrect to rationalize that it is okay to advocate arguments that one believes are deceptive, malicious or just plain false and still trust that the system will more often than not choose correctly. One could in fact argue that lawyers are bound by oath to advocate for their client in the most convincing way possible regardless of their personal beliefs. I imagine many politicians see themselves in this light. Again, perhaps there are problems with this view, all I’m claiming.

I view politicians as lawyers. I don’t care what sort of person my lawyer is, as long as he can represent me well, and the same goes with my political representatives. Just as self-interest usually prevails in keeping lawyers representing their clients well, so to the array of pressures and constraints in western democracies keep ambitious, ruthless politicians in line. We do need to worry about bad politicians making life worse for us, but I would like to submit the idea that this is due more to changes in the external pressures than the actions of any given politician. Stalins and Hitlers happen because the political landscape allows and supports their actions.

Let’s treat politicians for what they are, professionals who have teams of other professionals behind them working for the goal of survival as a political team. Politicians are like the CEO of a small corporation. We can and should hold them to account for their policy decisions, and expect them to behave in certain ways in the public sphere. But focusing on their personalities and one-up-manship in patriotism draws attention away from the platforms they are advocating. Whether a certain politician is nice, patriotic, or hates America is lost in the message massaging and spin doctoring that must take place in order to be successful. That is the reality. There are things we can and should do to change this reality. But when we are making a choice in the here and now about which candidate to pick, we need to understand that who would make a good president given our current options, like who makes a good lawyer, has little to do whether they are nice or likeable or associate with bad folks. Politicians who speak and act through their moral code do not survive as politicians in our environment. Because their statements will not be vague enough to garner support, and their specificity will be criticized with convincing rhetoric. What honest person can reason with the unreasonable in an exchange of sound bytes? Either you play the game or fail and some one more willing to play will take your place. Now, I suggest we leave aside how we judge the individual politicians, and realize that, for better or worse, our political system selects for these behaviors. We cannot expect anything otherwise.

I accept the current reality of sleazy politicians who are ambitious, empty vessels filled with focus-grouped sound bytes. They can be controlled by external pressures such as their team of advisors, the press, congress, public opinion and their desire for lucrative post-presidential careers as speakers. Personality, core beliefs, charisma, are not unimportant, but they are swamped by daily pressures from the party, interest groups, lobbyists, the press, etc.

The pathologies of how we communicate with and select our representatives are to blame for why we get professional, ambitious, soulless, representatives, and government that could be better. Until this basic problem is alleviated to a great extent, we’ll have to settle for sleazy lawyers representing us rather than Honest Abes. The question as to whether, deep down, any candidate is of the latter sort is generally irrelevant to their potential effectiveness as representatives.