Category: Living in Society

LAKE MACBRIDE— A story that asks the question “who will be the next statesman after Nelson Mandela” is circulating on the Internet, and there is no credible answer. The conditions that raised Mandela to prominence on the world stage may have been unique. The better answer is that someone like him is no longer possible on our connected globe with more than seven billion people. None of the current generation of political, religious or institutional leaders is a candidate for an appellation like global statesman. Suffice it to say Mandela was unique to his time.

Some of the best people in our federal government are making their exits. The departures continued yesterday with the announcement that Rep. Tom Latham of Iowa’s third congressional district was calling it quits at the end of his term. Following on the heels of Senator Tom Harkin’s similar announcement, the two couldn’t be more different from each other. But there is a common thread: Washington has changed.

When President Barack Obama was inaugurated, there was hope for getting things done. In the 111th Congress, Democrats had increased their majorities in both legislative chambers, presumably setting the stage for positive accomplishments with a Democratic president. That hope was dashed almost immediately. Hope was most certainly gone when I visited Washington in September 2009.

I made the rounds to Senators Harkin and Grassley’s offices to advocate for ratification of the New START Treaty and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). The former was perceived to be a slam dunk, and prospects for the latter were hopeful, and the reason for my engagement. In retrospect, ratification of the New START Treaty proved to be a Herculean struggle, and CTBT had no legitimate chances. I recall a conference call in 2010 with then Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs Ellen Tauscher where when asked about next steps after ratification of New START, her answer was hesitant. She demurred, indicating we were at the end of the line even if she hadn’t said it in so many words.

One knows there are lobbyists in Washington. Being from Iowa, we are used to lobbyists occupying every square inch of the capitol from the bathrooms to the law library to committee meeting rooms. In 2009, the number of Washington lobbyists was between 12 and 13 thousand people, and they descended upon the capitol in droves each day. I saw them, they can’t be missed. At the same time, lobbyists with substantial ability to influence is a much lower number, in the dozens. When I was walking through the senate office buildings, the presence of lobbyists was akin to what goes on with termites when they find a moist chunk of wood to gain entry into the foundations of a house: our government has been hollowed out.

Yesterday’s Iowa political story was not the announcement that Tyler Olson (Democratic gubernatorial candidate) and Tom Latham are exiting politics. The story being missed is that Tom Harkin and Tom Latham are exiting politics, and what that says about what’s going on in our federal government.

We are in a time when “the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.” In high school I knew that verse by W.B. Yeats referred to World War I, but this old poem resonates as clearly as a bell in today’s political environment. Begging the question, what rough beast is slouching toward Washington to be born?

LAKE MACBRIDE— One definition of politics is it’s the practice and theory of influencing other people on a civic or individual level. To be sure, politics is about persuading people to do one thing or another, and in the end, it means exerting power over others. Sometimes this is positive, and others less so— and politics is not necessarily a choice between good and evil.

In our country, we have a long history of persuasion and influence that includes popular figures, celebrities, charlatans, politicians, hustlers, hucksters, thieves, businessmen and women, dilettantes, and persons of varying credentials, some spurious and others genuine. Most of all this is widely accepted. A simpler definition of politics is it is life in society, and a motley amalgamation of ingredients for making a life.

Our lives are separate from politics. During a typical day, if such a thing exists, there may be few discussions about partisan politics while at the same time everyone is trying to persuade everyone else of something. The topic of whether Hillary Clinton will run for president in 2016 simply does not come up when I’m with most other people. Nor should it almost three years before the next presidential election. Politics is a lot more than the endless cycles of partisan politics.

The power of politics influences my behavior, but not so much. Sure, I’ll exercise diligence filing my tax return, comply as best I can with traffic laws, and try to be a good neighbor. Beyond that, it is easy to break away from the body politic to live a life, especially as the year-end holidays approach.  Yet politics takes no holiday. If anything the entreating parties increase the din of their pleas as one year ends and another lays in waiting.

In this quiet home place, the tax collector, the insurance companies, the lenders and retailers clamor for attention, and can be turned off, at least for a while. We are left with the pinkish sunrise of a new day and hope for a tomorrow where politics takes a long holiday. Something that by its nature seems impossible, but nonetheless, is the stuff of dreams.