Wanted: Strong, Artilculate Men Of Principle

In the current political war over the US debt ceiling and reductions in spending, I find myself more than slightly annoyed by the want of a certain kind of courage on the part of establishment Republicans.  John Boehner, Speaker of the House comes to mind [1].  Like others of his experience in politics, he is foremost a pragmatic man.  He weighs his options and carefully considers their political consequences.  Pragmatic men are precisely the kind who are needed to conduct the day-to-day business of government, but only so long as two conditions are met.  The first is that their political opponents act in good faith, and second, is that there not be an issue of such magnitude that the future of the nation is in peril.  Neither condition is currently satisfied by the current administration and the Democrat members of congress.  It is no longer the time for leadership to remain in the hands of moderate pragmatists.  Sorely needed are men of principle with the political will and courage to stand fast by their values and those of the American people.


I don't doubt Speaker Boehner's courage nor his will nor his concern for America's future.  What I doubt is that he is capable of acting outside the conventional rules of the established political system.  He is in the uncomfortable position of being pressured by the old guard Republicans on the one hand, and the Tea Party on the other.  More than many other of his colleagues in the House, he is aware that the latter faction may well have the power to depose him from his leadership position, and conceivably from the Congress itself.  Those pressures, however, will not provoke him to an irrevocable stand on principle.  He fears the abyss.  The example of, say, Jim DeMint is lost on John Boehner.

I think it is more apparent to Americans between the coasts than is generally believed that Progressives are fighting an undeclared (but obvious) war against the Right.  But the Republican ruling class is ever-willing to attribute honorable motives to the opposition, and they refuse to join the battle -- to fight.  I suspect that this failure of alertness and nerve accounts for much of the contempt in which the party is held.  Men wholly dedicated to principle do not fear to engage against bad faith, mendacity and aggression.  These are the men we need now.  "Damn the torpedoes...."

The Tea Party and the Republican Old Guard

What distinguishes the Tea Party folks is their clarity about and dedication to principle(s).  Small government, low taxes, state sovereignty and liberty.  In contrast, their interlocutors are dedicated (without great clarity) to praxis.  To be fair -- but only in practical terms -- it can be argued that the average Tea Party advocate hasn't so much (status, power, perks) to lose.  To that I would assert that, in their own view, the Tea Party has much more at stake.  Liberty.

Courage and Pragmatism

The decision to stand on principle when matters of great importance are in the balance and the consequences are unknown is not to be taken casually.  Pragmatism has no place in it.  After, and only after, the decision is made, pragmatic decisions may become critically important.

The great example for Americans is the decision of the Founders to conceive, write and publish the Declaration of Independence.  They put everything at risk, and had they failed they would have been stripped of their wealth, dishonored as traitors and likely executed.  Had they considered their decision in practical terms, it is near certain they would not have acted as they did.  Historians seem generally to believe that only about a third of American Colonists supported the idea of independence from Great Britain, and almost surely the Founders were aware that they held minority views.  They knew that their own wealth -- even when augmented by supporters, their numbers and their arms were no match against the British.  What did they have in their favor?  Not much; the outrage of a situation that had become intolerable and the power of an idea -- a vision of the possibilities of a new nation.  Once they had acted, however, the time had arrived to think strategically, practically.

Similar acts of courage were exercised by Southern secessionists, and under circumstances not unlike those the Founders knew.  Indeed the American Revolution was the model for secession.  In the case of the Founders standing on principle eventually was successful; the outcome for the South was, in the end, an unmitigated disaster.  Herein lies the crucial lesson: standing on principle is inherently a very risky business, and the consequences -- political, economic or existential -- cannot be known in advance. 

Now I should add that principled positions are often taken, even in government; they are not uncommon.  They may range from dealing with greater or lesser ethical matters to decisions on legislation to judicial writs.  The test of moral and political courage is the gravity, scope and the severity of potential consequences involved, where principle is the primary criterion for action.

What Should Conservatives (and other Republicans) Do Now? 

I have tried to lay the philosophical foundations for standing on principle.  Now let's go back to the issue at hand -- the debt ceiling and fiscal constraints on government.

It seems clear to me that the Cut, Cap and Balance is the most principled proposal yet to emerge from the current battle [2].  My preference is to see that come to the fore as the sole initiative and focus for Republican legislators.  Here is a case where things might work out badly for the nation and for Republicans and their Tea Party supporters.  If, in the unlikely event the legislation should pass the Senate and a presidential veto, America would move in the direction (a long haul, to be sure) of smaller government and a commensurate increase in liberty, fiscal responsibility and prosperity.  A lot to be at stake.  If the bill fails (or if it passes), the Right will be roundly vilified for its ideological rigidity, selfishness and disdain for all the identity groups created by the divisive Left.  They might suffer heavy losses in the next election.  On the other hand, public opinion might well overcome the best efforts of the Institutional Left [3].  In that case, even allowing for the bill's failure, Democrats might not be able to carry the day, and the Republicans might add momentum to the victory of the last election at both the state and national level.  Meanwhile, establishment Republicans will only see the coming of Armageddon, never knowing the power of an idea that conquers fear.  I think it's worth the gamble.


----------------
1.  My impression is that Speaker Boehner is a good man and honorable man  And I think he is a man who wants to stand on principle but is so inured to the traditional workings of the political "system" it will not come easily to him.
2.  I use the words, "war" and "battle" in lieu of "debate" in aid of accurate description.  Debate, where the Left is heavily represented, is all but impossible; it is rarely engaged in today, and -- when it is -- it seldom changes opinions or yields consensus.  But that's a matter for another blog.
3.  A solid majority in the country favors both a balanced budged amendment and Cut, Cap and Balance.  A CNN poll (no less) revealed that public support of 74% and 66 % respectively.  A virtual news blackout imposed by the Institutional Left has effectively suppressed the news.  Did you know about it?