What Is Politics?
And How Can We Defeat Its Worst Aspects?
Politics is the jostling for control of institutions.
The ethics/morality of politics depends, therefore, on:
1) the nature of the jostling;
2) the nature of the control being sought;
3) the nature of the institution itself.
But before we delve into some of those, let’s talk about a very popular and frankly ridiculous definition of “politics.” I imagine this farcical euphemism is promoted in order to make the politics seem more palatable or even virtuous. Let’s take a look at this quote:
“Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best.”
Attributed to Otto von Bismarck in the 1860s, this phrase — especially the truncated “Politics is the art of the possible” — has been often repeated, including by high-ranking government officials like the current U.S. president.
But it’s a terribly deficient definition, not only because it miscasts what happens in (especially government) politics, but also because so many other endeavors can be swapped in for “politics” and the sentence would make much more sense.
Engineering is the art of the possible.
Agriculture is the art of the possible.
Physics is the art of the possible.
Teaching is the art of the possible.
Sculpture is the art of the possible.
Entrepreneurship is the art of the possible.
Hairstyling is the art of the possible.
But politics? Hardly.
Saying politics is the art of the possible is like defining the sun by saying “the sun is in the sky.” Birds are in the sky, insects are in the sky, clouds are in the sky, smoke is in the sky, planes and helicopters are in the sky, etc. “The sun is in the sky” tells you practically nothing about the sun itself.
And once you learn what the sun actually is, you realize it’s not even true! The sun isn’t in the sky at all; it merely appears that way from an earth-centric perspective.
Back to our much better definition . . .
Politics is the jostling for control of institutions.
Politics is in our families, workplaces, schools, religious institutions, and neighborhoods. It’s not necessarily a bad thing. People should express their ideas and goals, and compete for influence in the minds of their kin, colleagues, and congregants.
Remember our three-pronged test for evaluating politics. As long as the jostling, control, and institutional form are nonviolent, then we can describe the politics as at least basically respectful of human dignity and agency.
This doesn’t mean that everything will go harmoniously for everyone involved, nor that everyone will enjoy the process and results. It simply means that limited, imperfect people have been decent human beings to each other in exploring their very real differences.
So, how about the things we call “government”?
Governments are institutions that claim a monopoly on violence over the occupants of a defined territory. The control exercised by government is coercive and imposed via hierarchy. And even if the jostling — the campaigning and vying for status — is done with complete honesty (hey, stop laughing!), the natures of the control and the institution are inescapably evil.
How about “democracy”? The fact that some people get to vote for some aspects of evil, doesn’t turn the evil into a virtue. It simply means that people can be flattered into supporting evil if they are invited and celebrated for joining the ritual.
As I am apt to say, including in the Good Neighbor, Bad Citizen book:
Coercive civil authority is inherently, intrinsically evil. There is no way to make virtuous any institution defined and sustained by the direct infliction and credible threat of harm.
I support every effort to undermine coercive civil authority. Some broad suggestions:
Build nonviolent, consent-based, parallel institutions to the violence-based ones that surround you.
Trade honestly with people, even if your doing so is considered a “black market” or “gray market” by the government.
Resist attempts to get you to participate in government-sanctioned violence.
Treat people as fellow human subjects with their own, individual dignity, agency, and authority of personhood; rather than as objects, as mere things, as only a means to your desired ends.
Be a bad citizen; yes, even in your flatulent “democracy.” And while you’re at it, take the next step: good neighbor.