Politics and Public Interest

Politics, by nature, is a complex and difficult concept to manipulate and understand.  The qualities that make a good politician don’t necessarily guarantee a good human being, but how are we to know?  As the public, we are overwhelmed by media coverage from politicians, yet we don’t really get the chance to know our politicians.  The only things we have to judge by are the media really, and it’s no secret how distorted the media can make things.  It is in our best judgement then, to analyze the very nature of politics, how it relates to the public’s common interest, and evaluate the best possible method to achieve that interest.  The goal here is to understand the process of political argument so we can better assess its actors, the politicians themselves.

What is political argument?  How does it differ in nature from a personal argument?  What about political argument specifies the difference?  The overarching goal of political argument is policy change, whether the politician has personal or public goals in mind.  Theoretically, with good political arguing, a politician could argue a point entirely the opposite of their actual view.  With sound political rhetoric, any representation of a person is possible.  The politician advocates their own vision of the public interest.  Their vision, however, is affected by numerous factors, including the visions of their political party, the effect it will have on their career long-term and the immediate effect the policy will have on the public.  

When a politician claims allegiance to a political party, he is often at the mercy of his peers.  This is not an altogether negative fact, as many opinions can often form a more expansive view that encompasses a wider range of people, but this fact has a major influence on the individual politician’s vision.  Having many opinions can also lead to disagreement, but this also forms a series of checks and balances and prevents any one opinion from getting too much say.  If we are going to assume the sincerity of political argument, as this theory temporarily will, then the vision of public interest that the individual politician advocates is his or her own opinion, influenced by the vision of their particular political party.  A vision that strays too far from the party’s overarching message is often viewed with disagreement if not disdain, so the individual is somewhat stuck aligning with their party’s political message.  However, politics are not so simply understood, and the quest for politicians to distinguish themselves from their peers is another factor to their vision of public interest. 

The social, economic and cultural problems that the politician is aiming to solve in order to achieve their vision of public interest are the problems that attack most, if not all Americans: unemployment, economic recession, living expenses, healthcare, class margins, crime and a slew of others.  The aim of a politician’s vision for public policy is broad, but the key to a good politician is their ability to look at the small details which make up such a broad vision and approach them with efficiency and accuracy.  By keeping their vision broad, they can encompass more voters, and thus have their policies be put into action.  A key point to keep in mind is the way politicians address the cause of the problem with current policy.  Always, in the eyes of opposing politicians, it is the failure of the current administration in power that is the cause of the problem, and what they advocate as the solution is their own and their party’s vision.  It’s a difficult thing to trust in, because by the nature of opinion there are always going to be various disagreements.  Additionally, the fact that politics even exists suggests a perpetual human need for argument and debate, which would then suggest that the concept of politics within itself is inane, and merely a form of playacting.  And yet, all cynicism aside, the game of politics remains the real vehicle for policy change and thus, changes within our society, making it an important part of our existence, playacting or not.   

The ways in which politicians attack their opponents can be broken into four categories: their past, truthfulness, credentials and decision making.  Often, a politician is trying to argue that their opponent is not a qualified candidate for any reasons they can come up with, but these four broad categories will suffice for the sake of this analysis.  An extremely popular (and important) fact that people will often attack during political debates is a person’s past.  The past is a vital indicator towards a person’s present self, so it’s human nature that people are going to dig for secrets that indicate a lack of character.  True or not, it’s exemplified by the wild stories about George Bush being a frat boy in college, Obama admitting having taken cocaine in his youth, or Mitt Romney impersonating a state police officer.  The things a politician searches for about an opponent’s past range from the ridiculousness of wild college stories to the seriousness of fraudulent business decisions or poor upbringing, and it seems that these days, nothing is sacred.

Let’s first consider the context of the modern political landscape.  The democratic party has held the presidency for two terms and Barack Obama, a younger, spirited politician (though he is looking a bit older these days), is president of the United States.  The way he runs his campaigns and policy plans revolve around the notion that he is a cool, levelheaded individual who compromises.  The success of his policies are completely tied to the success of his public image, so any attack on that image can be detrimental to his goals.  This being the case, Obama has often been criticized for being too willing to compromise or too impartial.  His other criticisms come from both sides and are often showcased in viral memes, some as outlandishly Right to accuse him of being a terrorist, while other so far Left have accused him of not being a true democrat or liberal.  In the recent presidential election between Mitt Romney and Obama, both candidates’ truthfulness was brought into question.  A particular focus of the Obama campaign against Mitt Romney was Romney’s truthfulness as a candidate.  By using his own statements against him, the Obama campaign painted a portrait of a rich man who didn’t understand the needs of an economically depressed middle class, one who would tell the public anything they wanted to hear.  On the other side, Romney’s campaign attempted to portray a family-oriented businessman, who had the fiscal and monetary experience to pull the country out of its recession.  Though we all know the outcome of the election, each candidate was portrayed by their respective camps as an honest and trustworthy candidate and were accused by the other side of being precisely the opposite.

During the Bush administration, George Bush was often accused of incompetence, as well as not having the proper credentials to be president.  Unlike most presidential candidates, who often have stellar academic records, Bush was nothing special and was criticized for his seemingly oversimplified understanding of the political realm.  His party portrayed him as a likable everyman who related to the working class (even though his privileged upbringing suggested otherwise).  He was criticized for his inability to make decisions on his own and for relying on his advisor’s opinions.  Though accusations of incompetence may come a little less for Obama than Bush, they come still the same, and are more focused on his wariness regarding policy and world affairs than his credentials.

Taking this perceived wariness into account, it’s likely to assume that Obama may make some decisions in direct opposition to his critics, rather than making the best decision for the public’s wellbeing.  Though I don’t believe he’s guilty of this often, it makes sense that he would need to exert some show of political muscle and party alliance to make an impact and keep his supporters.  The current party in power will often make policies that directly oppose the other party purely for the sake of opposition, and though these policies may retain the overall message of the party, they are decidedly less in the public’s best interest than they should be.  Another point to consider, is when a politician attacks another politician, they are not only trying to attack an opponent, but also appeal to their existing supporters.  In Obama’s case, he tries to appeal to the middle and lower classes and attack the rich.  Though he must (and in most cases the politicians do) believe in his policies, all politicians recognize their core group of supporters and try to appease them.  Politics in a democratic society are based around the public’s involvement, so it is in their best interest to participate.  It is the job of a good politician to spark this interest in people, by appealing to the audience who is best going to receive them.

Although Obama’s public image is built upon his ability to compromise, in politics, the idea of compromise is extremely useful yet seldom utilized, and most policies have to fall on one or the other political side.  Policies sometimes try to depict the situation as win-win, but in the end someone’s opinion is going to be disregarded.  Mostly, when advocating any type of policy program, the politician makes their policy seem like the best and most forthright idea regarding a particular issue.  It is not often that the politician will make clear which group is winning and which group is losing, but by the nature of the policy, somebody is going to win and lose.  The key to a good policy then, one would assume, would be minimizing the margin of loss between the two groups, but for obviously political reasons, this often seems impossible.  Though the politician is not always outright about it, the policy they advocate nearly always opposes the other party and defeats the purpose of compromise.

What politicians aren’t particularly shy about, is the use of political rhetoric to support their policy claims.  And while nobody really wants to point out losers and winners, politicians somewhat viciously pursue the notion that their opponents represent a danger or obstruction to common ideological values.  By appealing to those widely conceptualized ideas about what’s right and wrong, politicians can implicitly (and often explicitly) appeal to those values and attack opponents who oppose their values.  This characteristic, the ability to emulate common values and incorporate them into their values and subsequent policy, is what makes a good politician; whether you agree with their policies or not is irrelevant.  Then, the question must be asked, would this make a good human being?  The ability to emulate common values and incorporate your own policies sounds a bit self-serving, and the same abilities which make a politician successful (charming, articulate, well-motivated) can also be attributed to the world’s most famous sociopaths.  While it may seem a drastic comparison, it is not meant for shock value, but rather to establish the fact that all the qualities of a good politician do not add up to the qualities of a good person.  This of course, does not mean you cannot be a good person and politician as well, but merely serves as a wary comparison to take into account.

As a study, let’s examine the career of our current president, Barack Obama and assess his political success.  In a short-term goal, Obama achieved what the prior administration could not, killing Osama Bin Laden and putting many citizens at long-awaited ease (for a little while at least).  He reached out to groups who didn’t particular support him in his previous elections, including the gay community and women.  He established a form of health care, though often criticized, that changed the entire country and provided care to lots of lower income families.  Getting elected for his second term was proof enough of being a good politician, and he proved it further during the debates and his acceptance speech, embodying all of the qualities of a skilled debater and utilizing political tactics included in this analysis.  Regardless of his policies, Obama has proven to be a skilled politician who knows his audience and appeals to them.  

To understand the nature of politics is to be aware of manipulation, and the politician’s goal to appeal to our shared common values.  While policies may change and administrations will shift, the concept of politics remains indelibly tied to the hope that the public’s common interest is shared by its politicians.  Countless examples will prove contrary to this hope, but the public’s participation in politics remains a civil duty and reminds us that our society is only as good as the politicians who represent us.