In 2022, Brendan Buck was a Resident Fellow in the Harvard Kennedy School's "Institute of Politics." That's Buck, above. If you click the link to his name, you will be presented with a writeup about Buck on the Kennedy School's website.
In essence, Buck is a political consultant with longterm ties to the Republican Party, and with lots of experience in Congress. On March 20, 2025, Buck authored an opinion column that ran in The New York Times. His column was titled, "Democrats Are Playing With Tea Party Fire." That is the hardcopy version. Online, Buck's column had a different headline: "There’s a Price for Promising What Isn’t Possible in Congress."
Buck's commentary reflected on the very controversial decision by Senate Democrats to forego a fight in the Senate on the House-adopted "Continuing Resolution" that is allowing the federal government to keep functioning for the rest of the current fiscal year. "Fighting," in this context, would have meant that a minority of Democrats in the Senate would have shut down the federal government. As NBC News described the situation: "Democratic Party hits new polling low, while its voters want to fight Trump harder." Here is another link, taking you to a column on the Democratic Party response to the Continuing Resolution that was published in The Guardian. That column is absolutely in agreement with the NBC News report. The Guardian column says that the the Democratic Party is "old and out of touch." The Party should have "fought," not "folded." That's what The Guardian column suggests.
Buck's advice is that "fighting" the Republican agenda by shutting down the government would NOT have been a wise move. Reflecting on the experience of the Republicans, when they were in a Congressional minority, Buck provides this short summary:
Too often, for the base and our members, the achievable was unacceptable and the acceptable was unachievable. Fighting became more important than winning (emphasis added).
I was a member of the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors for twenty-five years. For most of those years, I was part of a three-person "majority" that prioritized environmental protection, growth management, the production of price-restricted affordable housing, and strong support for community-based social service efforts, as delivered by locally-controlled nonprofits. Usually, the things that the majority of which I was a part found "acceptable" were quite "achievable." No problem, in other words!
However, that was not always the case. Sometimes, I found that I didn't have the three votes necessary to accomplish something that I cared about (and that the people who had elected me cared about). What did I do then?
Here's what I did (or at least tried to do): I "made a deal." At least, I explored whether that was possible. I would make a deal that I did think "acceptable," though it was not what I really wanted. In other words, when what was achievable was not what I thought best, I tried to make the most progress I could, given the political realities, and given the votes that were actually available. However, please do note this, I would always vote "NO" on anything that I found truly "unacceptable."
In politics (particularly, I think, on the national level), some people (in both parties) believe that "fighting" is a virtue in and of itself. It shows "what side you're on," and what you really care about, and that is seen as the most important thing. There is a lot of truth in that perspective. The people who put an elected official in office, and who care about specific issues, want their representative to "fight for them." And that is what should happen, too!
However, "fighting" is not an end in itself. "Fighting" for something that you can't get (when you know you can't get it) can be a kind of "virtue signaling." In other words, it can be a kind of search for "cheap grace," politically speaking. The way to differentiate your position from the position of those who are on a "different side," is to state what you would find acceptable, and try to get the votes for that. If you can't get the votes for what you actually want, and you can't get the votes for something that you would find "acceptable," then you need to vote "NO" on what is unacceptable.
If something is truly "unacceptable," it is absolutely and vitally important to do that - to vote "NO."
Both "sides" of our ever-deepening political divide sometimes act as though politics should be an activity in which each side shows what it wants, and denounces what the other "side" wants, and essentially acts like political decision-making is always an "all or nothing" proposition. "Fighting" for what is right - for what your "side' thinks is right - is the actual object.
That's not the way to do it - at least not the way I see it. There are a lot of different opinions about what is important, and "acceptable," and "unacceptable," and our current political situation dramatizes the differences. It dramatizes the differences between us. It "polarizes" us, to use an ever more servicable description of how we are practicing politics and self-government today.
Because there is such a range of opinion in our country, both "sides" need to be clear about what they want to accomplish, and what they find "acceptable." They need to be clear about what they find "unacceptable," too. Both sides need to give up on "winning," if that word is taken to mean, "I get what I want, and you get nothing." The focus should be on what can we agree on, with the understanding that we'll come back some other day to try to decide what to do in the areas in which there is no agreement.
Is there something more important than "winning"? Yes!
What is more important than "winning" is the kind of politics I just described. That's a lot more important than "fighting," as a way to demonstrate your virtue, and to make clear the lack of virtue of those with whom you disagree.
Foundation of Freedom
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comment!