Is Participation in Formal Politics Intrinsically Immoral?
During the past couple of months, I have heard two people tell me that they are interested in running for public office in the future, and I was startled to hear that. Why would anyone who wanted to maintain his/her moral fiber participate in formal, institutional politics? When I hear someone say that he/she "wants" to run for office, it is akin to hearing that person speak of a new career in fraud.
Even though I am a libertarian, I do have to admit that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with running for political office. It is logically possible for one to campaign, win, and even "serve" (an oft misused term, especially in relation to politics) without becoming corrupt or authoritarian — logically possible, but empirically unlikely. In real terms, participation in formal politics almost inevitably corrupts the moral fiber of its participants in the following ways:
- Politics is simply power. Whether through war or the ballot box, those who want power utilize politics. (I certainly will grant that the ballot box is to be preferred over war.) Even the platitude that one is running for office in order to "help people" doesn't detract from the ultimate purpose and effect of politics: monopoly violence over others' lives.
- Such violence makes politics distinct from other disciplines, such as business, medicine, and academia. Are not those latter disciplines full of their own versions of corruption, megalomania, and incompetence? Absolutely! However, when such evils are contained in the private sphere, they are more easily managed by market competition. As a consumer, I usually can avoid the companies, doctors, and universities with whom I disagree (or even avoid an entire industry altogether). However, while I theoretically can "choose" my political representative (though unfortunately, the political sphere does not give me many agreeable options), I cannot choose to opt of the "government industry" altogether — even if I don't vote, I still have to pay taxes and live with the system I'm given. Thus, politics is much more of "all-encompassing" (monopoly) presence, coercing, rather than requesting, my loyalty.
- Finally, politicians with good intentions become frustrated, corrupted, or both. Candidates in (supposedly) democratic systems simply cannot deliver all (or even most) of the goods that they promise, since they often are blocked by other political actors (an illustration of how electoral campaigning almost inevitably leads to deception, whether self- or other-inflicted). Thus, said politicians (and their initial supporters) become frustrated and possibly end up making distasteful (and perhaps corrupting) compromises with their enemies in order to "get something done."
Thus, I must advise my friends, colleagues, and anyone within earshot — no matter how good their intentions — to avoid formal, institutional politics altogether. Empirically (though, I admit, not necessarily), campaigns, elections, and public "service" lead to authoritarian practices, megalomania, deception, frustration, and ultimately, the corruption of one's moral core. To run for political office is almost inevitably a Faustian bargain with little room for escape.
posted by Kevin O'Donovan @ 13:52
2 comments
2 Comments:
Interesting points, and I will concede that politics almost certainly requires compromise, which some may view as moral compromise. However, there are several reasons I disagree with your view (if I understand it correctly) that people of goodwill should avoid politics.
First, I would assert that someone will always have political power. Society will not abandon the edifice of the state. If the power will persist no matter what any individual chooses, then the individual who chooses to pursue politics is not the creator of the power and should not be blamed for its existence.
This is important only if the power is viewed negatively. However, I would assert that the power is necessary to minimize the impact of human and market imperfections. I completely disagree that "when such evils are contained in the private sphere, they are more easily managed by market competition." Evils in the private sector are managed by the police power of the state. Much of the progress of the past 150 years has been because of the constraints placed on the free market by the state. Were it not for these constraints, we would live in a world of monopolies that charged exhorbitant prices, routinely placed their employees in deadly situations, emitted countless toxins into the air, etc.
Furthermore, an individual cannot "avoid the companies, doctors, and universities with whom I disagree (or even avoid an entire industry altogether)" because of all their ripple effects. If Duke Power emits more CO2 into the air, the atmosphere around me gets warmer whether I purchase power from Duke or not. If Enron, Worldcom, and others commit accounting fraud, I may lose my job in the subsequent economic recession whether or not I was ever directly associated with those firms.
Finally, I would agree that "Candidates in (supposedly) democratic systems simply cannot deliver all (or even most) of the goods that they promise, since they often are blocked by other political actors." However, I view this as an incentive for people with policy expertise and political savvy to enter the public sphere. If they do not, then people who lack either the understanding of what needs to be done or the capacity to bring it about will hold the reins of power. While entering the public sphere may only result in, say, accomplishing 25 percent of the public goals the politician may have, not entering the public sphere is certain to result in none of those goals. While politics may (may) involve moral compromises, I would argue the true immorality is witnessing injustice, knowing how to remedy it, and doing nothing.
Interesting points, and I will concede that politics almost certainly requires compromise, which some may view as moral compromise. However, there are several reasons I disagree with your view (if I understand it correctly) that people of goodwill should avoid politics.
First, I would assert that someone will always have political power. Society will not abandon the edifice of the state. If the power will persist no matter what any individual chooses, then the individual who chooses to pursue politics is not the creator of the power and should not be blamed for its existence.
This is important only if the power is viewed negatively. However, I would assert that the power is necessary to minimize the impact of human and market imperfections. I completely disagree that "when such evils are contained in the private sphere, they are more easily managed by market competition." Evils in the private sector are managed by the police power of the state. Much of the progress of the past 150 years has been because of the constraints placed on the free market by the state. Were it not for these constraints, we would live in a world of monopolies that charged exhorbitant prices, routinely placed their employees in deadly situations, emitted countless toxins into the air, etc.
Furthermore, an individual cannot "avoid the companies, doctors, and universities with whom I disagree (or even avoid an entire industry altogether)" because of all their ripple effects. If Duke Power emits more CO2 into the air, the atmosphere around me gets warmer whether I purchase power from Duke or not. If Enron, Worldcom, and others commit accounting fraud, I may lose my job in the subsequent economic recession whether or not I was ever directly associated with those firms.
Finally, I would agree that "Candidates in (supposedly) democratic systems simply cannot deliver all (or even most) of the goods that they promise, since they often are blocked by other political actors." However, I view this as an incentive for people with policy expertise and political savvy to enter the public sphere. If they do not, then people who lack either the understanding of what needs to be done or the capacity to bring it about will hold the reins of power. While entering the public sphere may only result in, say, accomplishing 25 percent of the public goals the politician may have, not entering the public sphere is certain to result in none of those goals. While politics may (may) involve moral compromises, I would argue the true immorality is witnessing injustice, knowing how to remedy it, and doing nothing.
Post a Comment
<< Home