The Inevitable Disappointment of Politics
When Benjamin Franklin wrote that “nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes,” he not only touched on the inevitability of these concepts but also addressed the universal fear and loathing directed toward them. And while nothing may be done about inescapable death, people have tried to avoid and modify taxes since their conception. Along with issues surrounding war, religion, race, culture, and more, taxes and other economic policies are a seemingly permanent area of dissatisfaction for one section or another of a population, frustration that is frequently directed toward the ruling government implementing those controversial policies. Most people, both presently and throughout history, have been or remain dissatisfied with their government in one way or another.
For those permitted to voice their dissenting views, this disapproval often manifests in bottom-up collective action movements, particularly in democracies. From the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s concerning racial inequality to the average candidate campaigning for change, dissatisfaction with government historically results in broad grassroots activity. While all candidates for political office must organize at the grassroots level if they want any hope of success, Bernie Sanders’ brand of politics is especially striking in recent years in its collectivist rhetoric, which highlights struggles related to class. In any political campaign and in Bernie’s campaign in particular, average citizens come together to apply political pressure on the higher-ups in government in their push for the changes they desire.
But politicians and voters alike quickly realize that the realities of governance rarely mimic the promises made on the campaign trail. How many candidates, after all, blaze a path as steamrollers on the campaign trail, throwing promises and garnering enthusiasm left and right, only to fail at fulfilling nearly every promise once they assume office? To some extent, such is the inevitable nature of campaigning. But in another sense, this recurring disappointment is a result of governance itself.
When one wing in politics supports change while another supports the status quo, those on the side of change are far more frequently frustrated.
Because governance is structured, hierarchical, and cooperative, a massive portion of lawmaking and administration involves top-down pressure, requiring the approval and directives of higher-ups in order to initiate change. The President, for instance, directs the executive branch and its administrative affiliates, who must act within the bounds he or she lays out. The Supreme Court, perhaps the most top-down body in the United States government, decisively rules on issues affecting the entire nation with comparatively little motivation arising from the voices of average citizens. Across the governing process, top-down pressure is a necessary and crucial aspect of decision-making in that it organizes and prioritizes issues on the basis of hierarchical authority, and yet it conflicts with the bottom-up pressure that is also so inseparable from politics.
Bottom-up political pressure elects politicians who promise change in accordance with the will of the people, while top-down pressure from government and party leaders directs politicians in accordance with long-term national and party goals. Often, these forces pull in opposing directions—one populist, one establishment—and each camp criticizes the other. If a supporter of Sanders or Trump is asked what’s wrong with politics?, their answers might be something like the establishment or the swamp, but if a party leader is asked the same question, they might respond with items like polarization, lack of cooperation, and erosion of values. Because grassroots campaigns experience success by railing against Washington insiders or business-as-usual, yet party loyalty is a critical (though perhaps not strictly necessary) part of remaining in politics, there is a clear tension between bottom-up pressure and top-down pressure. Elected candidates are caught in the middle; beholden to their constituents and the promises of the campaign trail while simultaneously striving to advance in a complex party structure by appealing to party elites, it is perhaps no wonder that elected officials inevitably err in one aspect or another. While elections ought to hold politicians accountable when they fail, the reality of politics is often far from ideal, allowing elected officials to remain in office despite continuous failures.
For us, the politically-engaged citizens, this tension means we will likely always be disappointed by politics. Especially for progressives who seek to push reforms through, who are criticized as “too idealistic,” who continue to back candidates other than those supported by the party, disappointment is common when a preferred candidate loses a primary election or, upon their election, fails to follow through on measures they claimed to support. When one wing in politics supports change while another supports the status quo, those on the side of change are frustrated more often. This disappointment is inevitable. But the reforms are not, and so the political struggle continues.