Politics matters, of course, but the central question is how it matters. There are many academic explanations with varying merit, but I want to suggest a different conception that is more fundamental even if perhaps deceptively simple. I then want briefly to contrast politics with what we might call the “anti-politics” lamentably manifesting itself in current affairs.
We start with the elementary claim that people differ; we differ in all sorts of ways about all sorts of matters from the trivial to the deadly serious. We can differ regarding favorite food and drink, types of cars we like, favorite sports, and so on. We also differ about more serious things, like the type of person we might want to marry, the type of career or profession we might choose, and, especially, the two things we’re not supposed to talk about in polite company, viz., politics and religion.
So, looking at almost any society, we are confronted immediately by the fact of diversity. Given that fact, we know that in some areas of life we can be left free to live our diversity and make our own choices independently of others, while in other areas we cannot be left to our own choices but must accept a single rule binding on everyone. We are free, for example, to listen to the music of our choice as we drive down the road in our car, but we are not free to pick whatever side of the road we may drive down, for obvious reasons.
Thus, in some areas of human life we are free to make our own choices but in other areas we require a single rule binding on everyone whether we like it or not. Which rule do we pick, then? Well, it’s obvious—pick mine. The problem is that you will say the very same thing about your preference. We see this in the saying, “Every issue has three sides: my side, your side, and the right side—in other words, my side.”
Diversity thereby creates the potential for conflict in two ways. We can argue about whether a given activity is reserved to individual as opposed to a universally binding social choice. And, on the assumption that in a particular area we must have a single universal rule, we can argue about what that rule should be.
This analysis helps us understand, for example, the logic of the abortion debate. For pro-choice advocates, there is no clearly objective, universally binding answer about fetal personhood, with the consequence that what matters is not what choice is made, but who makes the choice. Against abortion? Don’t have one.
For pro-life advocates, on the other hand, there is indeed a clearly objective, universally binding answer about fetal personhood, with the consequence that what matters ultimately is not who makes the choice, but that the right choice be made. There is a correct answer, and individuals, as in math, don’t have the right to be wrong about it.
Thus, diversity engenders conflict, and historically there are three ways of dealing with conflict.
The first is emigration—you simply move to another country. The second is an old, tried-and-true way of dealing with conflict—force and violence: you kill or beat the hell out of the other person.
In an era when mass emigration is no longer possible, the only peaceful way we have of dealing with the conflict engendered by diversity is politics. At its core, politics is the process of finding ways to live together with people with whom we have significant differences. Its purpose is not to settle matters of absolute or ultimate concern, but rather to enable us to coexist with people who differ significantly from us about such matters. Politics accepts the legitimacy of difference.
What I am calling the “anti-politics” of our current predicament rejects the legitimacy of difference. It is the activity of various groups both religious and secular that want to establish, each in its own way, some singular ultimate Truth by which we, like it or not, are all to live.
Politics, then, is not about Truth with a capital T, is not a battle between good and evil; it is about finding ways to live together amidst competing truths with a small t. If your “politics” is about Truth or God, it is not politics; it is the dangerous impulse of absolutism.
I end with a story about the legitimacy of difference expressed by Jack Kemp, a quarterback for the Buffalo Bills who then went into politics as a Republican member of Congress. He ran unsuccessfully with Bob Dole against Bill Clinton and Al Gore in the 1996 presidential election.
The story is that Kemp was at a Republican campaign rally where the speaker before him said, “We have to defeat our enemies, the Democrats.” Kemp stopped him and said, with real patriotism, “No, you’re wrong. The Democrats are not our enemies; they’re our opponents. We’re all Americans.”
Where is Jack Kemp now, when we really, really need him?
Coherence on display!
Nice essay, Thank you.