Garry Wills on the Quest for Political Purity

Garry Wills in NYRB reacts to a post by Harvard law prof Robert Unger saying the Obama must be defeated in order to advance the "progressive agenda". I know that I tweeted this as a "must read", but I must needs say more.

First, this bone-headed idea that we must make things bad enough to bring about "real change" or whatever term of adulation you prefer, is a recipe for suffering and disaster. Radical political movements of both the Right and Left love such pure thinking. It's poison! We may not like our choices, but choosing the worse in order to (hope) get the better later is nuts. It just doesn't work that way, not at least often enough to place bets. A failed Mitt Romney presidency is as likely to take the country to the right as it is the left, and perhaps more so. And the left--well, it's track record, when it comes to radical reform, is poor. Incremental change is often frustrating and difficult to stomach, but radical change is most often for the worse.

Wills wrote an excellent piece in Harpers (alas, gated) about politics in 1976 entitled "Feminists & Other Useful Fanatics" that addresses these same issues. Wills has admiration of the purists,  the 'saints", like feminists, Martin Luther King, Jr.,  and others, but he also understand the role of politicians. The two roles are different, and we really shouldn't try to mix the two very closely or very often. The purity of the saint won't work for the politician, and the compromise inherent in politics sullies the saint (or prophet, as I believe Wills refers to them as well.)

I go with the realists, the incrementalists, the politicians.
(For another great statement of the perspective, go read Max Weber's "Politics as a Vocation", especially the part about the two ethics.)

Why Is This Man Laughing? by Garry Wills | NYRblog | The New York Review of Books

Why Is This Man Laughing? by Garry Wills | NYRblog | The New York Review of Books

I've held a conversation as recently as today about Romney's awkwardness. Just an awkward smart/rich guy who can't fit in? Is he just plain weird? As I generally avoid watching him since I rarely agree with him, he panders far beyond even the average politician (a high bar to exceed), I won't vote for him, and he IS AWKWARD. Thus, I don't see his laugh that often, but Wills gives us some insight from his position as a veteran political reporter, as well as Kundera & Dostoevsky reader. Very interesting.

Brooks on Repubicans

Brooks writes interestingly on the rather pathetic (my term, not his) Republican race, how even brighter Republicans, like Lugar & Hatch (well, maybe) are adhering to tribal loyalty. In fact, as Brooks notes, adherence to the crazy of the day seems to trump anything, thus the parade of lame potential nominees, all, as Brooks notes, unelectable. And how about Romney! Wow, I thought Richard Nixon was awkward in public, but Mitt seems to take it to a whole new level. Nixon was plagued by demons of inadequacy and inferiority leading to a degree of paranoia (and thus Watergate). Romney has to try to hide that he's not a normal guy. Did Washington have this problem? No! Washington cultivated his alooffness. Different times, for sure.

David Frum on Sarah Palin & The Lesson We Should Learn

David Frum is lining up as my second favorite conservative writer behind David Brooks. We might disagree about a number of things, but I imagine that I would have a very enjoyable conversation with the guy if we sat down to talk shop. In this particular article, he tells us the brains are important in choosing presidential canidates, character and not demographics are important in choosing presidential candidates, and that women weren't fooled by Sarah Palin, but men, apparently going all instinctual, were. Three points that make a lot of sense to me. His asides in the column about Mitt Romney and Rick Perry are right on point as well.