If we lived in a perfect world, politics wouldn’t be necessary, but we don’t, and it is…..

I’ve been fascinated by the drama of the U.S. Presidential Election as it unfolded over the past few months.

Many commentators are this week indicating their expectation that the gridlock in Washington is about to get worse, with a few moderate politicians being replaced by hardliners on both sides of the aisle.

Part of the problem is that both sides are living in a bubble that reinforces their worldview, as now both the Right Wing, and the Left have their own media services, churches and champions, who like a shout in an echo chamber, keep reinforcing their entrenched positions.

Right Wing and Left Wing are interesting terms. Basically the Right Wing (or conservative) position is that the individual with initiative is the main source of hope for any country, and the government should do all it can to free individuals from as many restraints as possible (namely taxes and regulation) and trust that individuals will use their resources wisely to employ others, support Non Government charities and pay for their own retirement and health care.

Fundamentally the right wing trust the individual over the government, which is typified by their strong support for the right to own firearms. In the Southern states, at least, there is a direct tie-up between gun ownership and the perceived ability to fight the government if they get out of control (mind you I’m not sure how a militia would go against an infantry regiment!) Paradoxically the Right Wing do want the government to legislate in areas of personal morality like drug use, abortion and marriage.

The Left Wing believe that the world is not an even playing field and that those who have more money should contribute more to society financially, they also tend to believe that Government Regulation is a good way of controlling people with money and power, assuming that people are basically self interested and need to be induced to contribute to the greater good. Fundamentally the Left Wing trust government over the individual, however they tend to argue against government regulation of personal morality issues like drug use, abortion and marriage.

A case could be put that when our democracies have been at their best, they have had a balance of people coming from both the left and the right, and it has been the middle ground between the two that has been the most productive. There has never been an ideal balancing point, with the centre of gravity continually sliding one way or the other.

Finding a middle ground though, requires people to be willing to compromise their ideology. The right need to allow government to levy taxes and regulate, and the left need to trust entrepreneurs and the (mostly) free market.

Politics in a democracy necessitates the messy business of compromise, Compromise is not easy, particularly if you have a strongly held point of view. Compromise can feel like you are betraying everything you believe in, and a political commentator today likened the spirit amongst Republicans to the 300 spartans who committed themselves to death in order hold off the invading hordes. He said that they are not ready to give an inch in their fight to lower taxes and reduce regulation. This is a worry! Both in the U.S. and Australia, we need more people who will do the messy work of compromise that effective politics demands.

I was fascinated to watch Anabelle Crab’s interview with Peter Garret in her “Kitchen Cabinet” show a couple of weeks ago. Garret, as the lead singer of Midnight Oil was an uncompromising voice against war, nuclear energy, uranium, and discrimination against Aboriginal Australians. On becoming a politician, he had to toe the party line, and at one point had to approve a Uranium mine. His reflection in the interview was that in order to make a real difference, it was important to get into the political game of compromise and following the party line. He made it clear that he had no regrets about the shift from being free to speak his mind to being a politician. It got me thinking.

Every now and then a politician rises above the rest and earns the title of statesman or stateswoman by articulating a vision that is so compelling that a nation is re-aligned, but unfortunately that doesn’t happen all that often. William Wilberforce was such a politician, however in doing so he consciously relinquished his chance to be Prime Minister so that he wouldn’t have to compromise his values.

We need the voices who won’t compromise, who have an ideological position that they are ready to fight for. Martin Luther King said,

“A man who won’t die for something is not fit to live.”

We need people like Billy Graham, Martin Luther-King and Mother Theresa, who are committed to a vision and dedicate their lives to live it out, but these people would not be good politicians.

Idealism is not a bad thing, its important, but sometimes it needs to be tempered with an understanding that the world is a messy place, and we are messy people… I think that’s why one of my favourite bits of the bible is in Romans 7 when the Apostle Paul admits:

For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing.
(Romans 7:18-19)

If we lived in a perfect world, politics wouldn’t be necessary, but we don’t, and it is, and I’m grateful for the people who throw themselves into the mess that it is.