I just finished reading John Adams by David McCullough. I see why he won the Pulitzer for this book.
In addition to being a good read and providing insights into the life of Adams, the book also explored the political conflicts he faced.
Given that we just had an election, and the current poisonous political climate in this nation, the timing was perfect.
Adams had a number of personality flaws, but he was a principled man who was the target of all sorts of often unfair and vicious political attacks. Those attacks included ones on his appearance and personality, as well as multiple innuendos and outright lies. Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton in particular did not emerge looking good given their words and actions.
I've been involved in politics in a variety of ways over the years, starting with campaigning for George McGovern back in 1972! (Well, the option that year was Nixon, so ....). I've been a party official, and a candidate myself. I also covered elections as a reporter.
Based on my experiences, I don't have a particularly high opinion of most politicians and the majority of voters.
Chesterton, of course, had plenty to say about politics, elections, and politicians. The line of his most often quoted is, "“It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged.” But he had more to say.
In his autobiography, he talks about campaigning for candidates. He was canvassing potential voters, and assumed that the purpose was to engage them in conversation. He discovered his assumption was an "extraordinary delusion."
"The object of canvassing is counting. The only real reason for people to be pestered in their houses by party agents is quite unconnected with the principles of the party (which is often a complete mystery to the agents): it is simply that the agents may discover from the words, manner, gesticulations, oaths, curses, kicks or blows of the householder, whether he is likely to vote for the party candidate, or not vote at all."
He also discovered through various elections that the candidate each time was often "the worst duffer on his own platform." Indeed, the speakers on the candidate's behalf such as Hilaire Belloc or John Simon were often more articulate about the platform or even as speakers that is the candidate. He realized "that what runs modern politics is money; and that the superiority of the fool in the frockcoat over Belloc and Simon simply consisted in the fact that he was richer than they were."
I recall as a reporter and newspaper town blogger interviewing many candidates who clearly did not understand what their platform really was about: They just kept repeating the taking points they had memorized. And often they were selected to run not because of their outstanding skills, knowledge, or intelligence, but because of their connections or because they did business with party officials or already elected individuals. I saw that the politicians who tended to get reelected or move on to other offices were often the ones who most towed the party line, not showing independent thought, or even any thought at all.
As for the voters, they are easily swayed by the contemporary version of "frockcoats." Slick ads, smooth-talking, good-looking candidates who know all the right talking points and lies/slurs to repeat. Too many voters do not take the time to really research the candidates or the issues. They just blindly vote by party, or for whoever captures their fancy.
Cynical? Perhaps. And I will admit that there are intelligent, informed, independent politicians, but we have too few of them. And those voters? Out in California the voters said they supported having an independent redistricting commission, then voted to overturn the districts created by that commission. Did they have any idea what they were voting for? Not likely. The party told them what to vote for - and added animus toward the President - and the voters dutifully did as they were told.
As Chesterton notes, “Men are ruled, at this minute by the clock, by liars who refuse them news, and by fools who cannot govern.” Indeed, he also observes, “When a politician is in opposition he is an expert on the means to some end; and when he is in office he is an expert on the obstacles to it.”
But, in the end, we do need some sort of government. After all, as Chesterton admits, “All government is an ugly necessity.”
Often ugly indeed.
