Politically Motivated!
A friend recently responded to a comment on his blog with the following statement: "[A]ny investment by the [B]ush administration into abstinence programs is VERY politically motivated."
To my ears, this was intended as a slam of some sort, but it's one of those slams that sound bad until you stop and reason it out. Bush is, and I don't intend to connote anything in particular by saying this, a politician. He was elected (twice) to his job as president, and before that he was electe twice as Governor of Texas. These elections were political in nature; therefore, Bush is a politician.
Yes, we can all be cynical about "politicians". They're almost as bad as used car dealers, insurance salesmen, and (gasp!) lawyers. We can cuss them for departing from principle, selling out the people they're supposed to represent, feathering their own nests, etc., etc., etc. And I'm all for that. Let us all have a good laugh at Ambrose Bierce's definition of politics: "A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage."
But exactly how is it fair to criticize a politician for doing something motivated by . . . politics? At best, this is like Aesop's frog complaining to the scorpion for stinging the frog while the frog gave the scorpion a ride across the river. "Why did you sting me?" asked the frog. "Because it is my nature," answered the scorpion.
We know, though, what my friend really meant. He meant that the Bush Administration and the people who make it up really don't care about the morality or immorality of illicit sex; they just want all those red state rubes to vote for their side. A small question arises: how does he know? Obviously, he doesn't. To admit the truth, I don't really "know" either. I know a few people who have played lesser roles in the Bush Administration, and some are very concerned about "social conservative/family values" issues, and others couldn't care less, their enthusiasm being reserved for keeping taxes low, the economy strong, and/or the world safe from terrorism.
So, suppose my friend is right. Suppose the Bush Administration is full of crass political opportunists who push abstinence because it gets them votes, not because they think it will help stop AIDS and certainly not because they care about morality. Does this make the red staters suckers for voting for these guys? I think not. If I favor policy X, and candidate A opposes it while candidate B doesn't really care either way but is agreeable to supporting it if I will vote for him and thereby permit him to pursue other policies that I don't care about (or on which I agree with candidate B), then candidate B is my man. The fact that he is "pandering" to me to win my vote doesn't really matter. In fact, as a voter, I'm more likely to view what candidate B does as "listening to his constituents" and representing my interests even when they don't precisely intersect with his own. THIS IS WHAT POLITICS IS -- different groups of people interested in different things cooperating with one another so they can each achieve some measure of what they each want. You want a war on terror? OK, I'll vote for that if you'll help me stop the slaughter of abortion. You want milk subisides? OK, but I want a butterfly research facility in Ohio.
So beware the next time someone says a politician is "politically motivated". You're being set up.
To my ears, this was intended as a slam of some sort, but it's one of those slams that sound bad until you stop and reason it out. Bush is, and I don't intend to connote anything in particular by saying this, a politician. He was elected (twice) to his job as president, and before that he was electe twice as Governor of Texas. These elections were political in nature; therefore, Bush is a politician.
Yes, we can all be cynical about "politicians". They're almost as bad as used car dealers, insurance salesmen, and (gasp!) lawyers. We can cuss them for departing from principle, selling out the people they're supposed to represent, feathering their own nests, etc., etc., etc. And I'm all for that. Let us all have a good laugh at Ambrose Bierce's definition of politics: "A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage."
But exactly how is it fair to criticize a politician for doing something motivated by . . . politics? At best, this is like Aesop's frog complaining to the scorpion for stinging the frog while the frog gave the scorpion a ride across the river. "Why did you sting me?" asked the frog. "Because it is my nature," answered the scorpion.
We know, though, what my friend really meant. He meant that the Bush Administration and the people who make it up really don't care about the morality or immorality of illicit sex; they just want all those red state rubes to vote for their side. A small question arises: how does he know? Obviously, he doesn't. To admit the truth, I don't really "know" either. I know a few people who have played lesser roles in the Bush Administration, and some are very concerned about "social conservative/family values" issues, and others couldn't care less, their enthusiasm being reserved for keeping taxes low, the economy strong, and/or the world safe from terrorism.
So, suppose my friend is right. Suppose the Bush Administration is full of crass political opportunists who push abstinence because it gets them votes, not because they think it will help stop AIDS and certainly not because they care about morality. Does this make the red staters suckers for voting for these guys? I think not. If I favor policy X, and candidate A opposes it while candidate B doesn't really care either way but is agreeable to supporting it if I will vote for him and thereby permit him to pursue other policies that I don't care about (or on which I agree with candidate B), then candidate B is my man. The fact that he is "pandering" to me to win my vote doesn't really matter. In fact, as a voter, I'm more likely to view what candidate B does as "listening to his constituents" and representing my interests even when they don't precisely intersect with his own. THIS IS WHAT POLITICS IS -- different groups of people interested in different things cooperating with one another so they can each achieve some measure of what they each want. You want a war on terror? OK, I'll vote for that if you'll help me stop the slaughter of abortion. You want milk subisides? OK, but I want a butterfly research facility in Ohio.
So beware the next time someone says a politician is "politically motivated". You're being set up.
posted by Under The Mountain | 7:35 PM
5 Comments:
of course one would expect bush to be political. he's a snake. the issues with abstinence sex education are kind of complex, at least in my mind. this is just part of the issue, but I definitely aim to break down any claims that bush has provided some sort of moral platform for sexuality.
I think you're just trying to bait us into defending Bush's moral character, but I'm not going to go there. Why your interest in bringing him down?
Thanks for noticing that the abstinence sex education issue is complex. It really is. It intersects with one's views on personal vs. public morality, government funding of disease research, government's proper role in education, foreign aid, etc.
not really trying to bait. attack is probably a better word. I just think you are being too reasonable in your writings about the bush administration.
After much heart searching, prayer, and consultation with counsel, I plead . . . guilty . . . to being reasonable.
I know. That's the thing about you Pickerings. You're so damn resonable and you can make people believe the same crazy stuff that you do.
Su
Post a Comment
<< Home