The Thing Forgotten

Politicians are inherently reactive creatures. In the mean, they must respond to the will of the voter, or they shall quickly forfeit their office. It does not matter whether an individual official bends to the will of the voter; If he does not, his replacement will. In the long view, political leadership will mold to the views of the electorate.

Presidents are particularly reactive creatures. They may arrive in office with the thought that they will implement a bold proactive agenda. But Presidents have responsibilities, and they inevitably find themselves forced to react to events, and spend the greatest part of their time engaged with issues they did not anticipate. In the end, they almost always must settle for implementing some rump of their plans -- and that is almost always the part of their agenda most amenable to the polity at large.

The philosophy of a president can be deeply influential. But rather than helping to drive an agenda, it serves most often in helping to shape his response to events. It emerges from a long series of decisions -- some large, some small -- which are then judged by the people as a whole. The effects of this philosophy are weighed, both consciously and unconsciously, by voters, and that may influence future votes. And a President has an unrivaled platfrom from which he can attempt to influence the values and philosophy of observers with his words. Thus, Roosevelt left a legacy within the federal bureaucracy and judiciary, but he also left a legacy within the electorate, and deeply shaped the philosophies of a generation. The same can be said of Reagan.

Politics, then, is a Darwinian game. You can be a paragon of princple if you like, but if that principle is unpopular, your time in the sun will be very short. And that is as it should be.

For a healthy political system, it is absolutely necessary to have adversaries, and necessary for the widest range of opinions to be represented, at least among candidates standing for office. Even candidates who have no chance of winning are important to the process because they can become significant to the outcome of some election. They can influence by offering contrast. Even with just a small fraction of the electorate behind them, they can become forces to be reckoned with. The major political party who suffers most at their hands is forced to incorporate some aspect of the minor party's philosophy, in order to absorb some of their supporters. This is the true role of politicians like Ralph Nader or Ron Paul. Even Nader's gruff and unpolished exterior is a meme in this Darwinian battle, if only as a reminder of what it sounds like when a man tells you what he really thinks.

What Al Gore realized was that by not being president, an individual is able to focus much more intently on changing the ecosystem in which political creatures must live. Unhampered by the burdens of the Presidential office -- and maybe more importantly, now unhampered by such ambitions -- he is able to focus on a proactive agenda, and he has been astonishingly successful (though not soldiering alone). Gore realized that once you change societal awareness and opinion on an issue, you have moved the ground beneath the feet of the politicians.

We now have an election where the presidential candidates of both parties acknowledge that Global Warming is real, is man-made, and must be addressed. Both of them are dealing with the issue far more realistically than either candidate did four years ago. That's because there has been a sea change in the electorate. A different electorate would have produced -- in fact, did produce -- different candidates. Denial of the reality of global warming, which was considered a respectable political position within the last decade, is now virtually an impossible position for a national candidate.

If the Republicans had offered a candidate identical to John McCain in every respect, but who denied the reality of Global Warming, he might be behind by 20 or 25 points in the polls, rather than 7 or 10. It's a non-issue in this campaign mostly because there isn't a gulf between the candidates on the topic, and their prescriptions are quite similar. As soon as this election sweeps away the last vestiges of the Republican political ascendancy which obstructed action on global warming, concrete policy changes will ensue. When Republicans return to power in the U.S. in the future, it will be as a party which has accepted the reality of climate change.

Policy battles aren't the same as political battles, and politicians are only one influcene on the opinions of the electorate. Political battles are over which people have actual power. Policy battles are essentially cultural: Leaders must make their case to the people, and win their support. Leaders influence the basic beliefs and values of a society.

So, amid our present obsession with partisan electoral politics, the thing forgotten is this: THESE LEADERS NEED NOT BE POLITICIANS. Indeed, very, very few politicians are actually influential on the thinking of the people, and few real leaders hold political office. Once the electorate embraces a certain vision of the way things must be, the politicians will follow. Because they are inherently reactive creatures.