I want to commend to your attention a post by Michael Tomasky at The Guardian. In the post Mr. Tomaskey annotates the Edward Luce column at FT I linked to earlier. From Tomasky’s introduction:
It’s another “what’s gone wrong?” story, but unlike a lot of others this one rings very true. Obama has put too much faith in his inner circle — Axelrod, Emanuel, Gibbs and Jarrett, all but Emanuel from the campaign. But campaigning and governing are two different things, and sometimes this quadrumvirate, or pentumvirate if you include the principal, can’t sort out the forest for the trees and thinks too much about politics and not enough about substance.
I don’t necessarily agree with that assessment but I find his ensuing comments interesting nonetheless.
Reading his sparked off some thoughts in me. I know that there’s a strain of thought that’s gained some currency that politics is warfare. However, as the United States has learned recently, there are limits to main force.
In politics shoving a measure through on a straight party line vote, in opposition not only to the other party but to national polls and even, on occasion, constituents, may enact the measure into law but it may not give you the victory. Just like air power such power politics can create as many enemies as you’ve overcome by the tactic.
Main force is not the only political tool. There are leadership, educating people, making your case to your constituents, convincing people, attracting converts, collaborating, and constructing a path to your goal through a series of intermediate steps, just to name a few.
A counter-insurgency strategy is a political strategy but it requires you to convince the people that what you propose is better than the alternative and to meet with them on common ground and grant respect to their views.
Maybe all of these are being employed but I certainly don’t see it. For example, to date I haven’t received a single piece of frank mail trying to convince me that what my representatives in Washington are doing is right. I’ve received tons that assume that’s what I think but none that lays out a case that they are.
If Congressional representatives take the position that they are leaders, not necessarily bound to the views of their constituents, presumably because they know better, it seems to me that it would be prudent for them make their case to those constituents and trying to convince them that the course they’re following is the right one.
There is no such thing as permanence. Seats don’t remain safe forever as Dan Rostenkowski learned to his sorrow.
