Why My Views On Politics, Even if They're Right, Probably Aren't Worth Very Much

You've probably already come to that conclusion on your own. And, the truth is, I don't take a deep interest in politics for the simple reason that I'm generally too inconsistent in my views to be much of an ideologue. Now, I happen to think that inconsistency in one's political views may be a virtue, as long as it's the right kind of inconsistency (the wrong kind would be: hypocrisy). So, let me say a word or two about my political philosophy and offer a brief apologia for writing so many political posts of late.

Aristotle, helpful as always, noted that politics is more a matter of practical wisdom than scientia. Other disciplines, such as those that we would today call the physical sciences, may and indeed must deal with objects of scientia, but there is no such object corresponding to the governing of the polis. A good Aristotelian leader is one possessed of practical wisdom, endowed with a talent for solving particular problems in particular circumstances. The art of politics consists in identifying, prioritizing, and addressing those problems. There is no magic algorithm for doing so, and the ideological purists on the left and right fail to appreciate this simple point.

As it turns out, I've lived in one of the most politically liberal cities in America (Ithaca, which at the time boasted the country's only socialist mayor) and the most conservative (Provo, no explanation necessary). And neither is exactly a paradise or a hell on earth. In point of fact, they aren't terribly different in terms of quality of life, although I think I found Ithaca somewhat more tolerant and family-friendly than Provo (the reason, I guess, is that my family's kind of conservative lifestyle and our exotic religious views made us somewhat subversive and counter-culture). So it's hard for me to accept the premise that "if only the Republicans/ Democrats were more dominant things would be oh-so-much better." Well, I doubt it. So, party politics, ideology-driven politics, "principle"-driven politics: that stuff doesn't mean much to me, at least at the crude level of presidential and congressional elections (now, political theory in a deep sense is another matter entirely).

Neal A. Maxwell was fond of quoting C.S. Lewis to the effect that some people like to run around with fire extinguishers in times of flood. That strikes me as a good enough definition of an ideologue. The purists who believe that Democrats are for big government haven't bothered checking how recent Republican administrations have done on that count, and those that believe that Democrats are against big business don't know what they're talking about either. Both parties are ideologically schizophrenic and that's fine. If you're going to vote for one or the other, you should do so because you believe that your party has a set of priorities consistent with your own and that their leaders are (at least relatively) wise and capable.

If I've been hard on McCain and Palin, it's because I don't think either shares my priorities and the latter, at least, is ideologically driven in dangerous ways (at least she raises enough red flags for me that I find her candidacy very troubling). It should be obvious by now that I think they both fall short, far short, on the "wise and capable" meter as well. So, you can feel free to disagree with my political priorities and my assessment of the merits of the two main presidential tickets. But don't tell me that you're voting "on principle" and expect me to do the same. You lost me there with "principle," which in my view is a synonym for "ideological" (which is not, of course, to say, that the converse of "principled" is: "without integrity." Au contraire).

Coming in a future post: what is wrong with Mormons' tendency to identify with the Republican party.