Political integrity

Facing reality – Part 2 of 2

In Part 1, I observed that politics is a process. In a democracy, that process is based on the fact that every citizen has an equal right to influence the political process; and consequently will lead to legislation that can (and usually will) contain content that for one reason or another will be objectionable to most legislators – but for which they must vote because the overall purpose of the bill is a good one. From this, I concluded that "litmus tests" tend to be an unfair measure of a legislator's integrity.

So does that mean that they're all bums? No. What it means is, that we must understand what integrity is in a political context. In my experience, most officeholders do have integrity, in that they genuinely want to serve the greatest good for the greatest number. They genuinely want to do the right thing in office.

The easiest way to arrive at that proper understanding is to consider the difference between strategy and tactics, where strategy is the overall record of a political official, and a tactic is a particular vote or decision. In the military, tactics are designed to fit a particular strategy. The tactics may change because of the battlefield situation at a given time, but the changes are still intended to carry out the strategy.

So it is in politics. An honest candidate will communicate to the electorate his strategy – that is, the principles and major policy positions he will adhere to during his term in office. He then holds himself accountable to the voters for keeping his votes and decisions (tactics) aligned with his principles and positions (strategy). Sometimes, after getting into office, an official might discover that a particular position was unrealistic or undesirable; in which case, he must explain to the voters why he changed that position and how his new position still aligns with his principles. However, we should expect that such changes will be uncommon. Those who repeatedly vote against their declared principles or who repeatedly change positions; for example, after being influenced by polls, are rightly understood to lack integrity.

The candidates that we want to support will hold fidelity to the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Ohio as their highest principle, and will hold themselves accountable for votes and decisions that generally work toward more Constitutional government. Sometimes they will have to vote for a bill or make a decision that at first blush appears contrary to those goals (for example, in the budget bill to ensure that the state continues to operate); but their overall voting record should make it clear that they are working toward greater freedom.

Lenin (who for obvious reasons is rarely quoted here) said that sometimes "we have to take two steps forward and one step back." That is the nature of politics. The path to any political goal is not a straight line; but if we persevere, understanding the realities of politics, we can ensure that the path will ultimately lead us where we want to go.

It is therefore of the highest importance for the liberty movement to keep this reality in mind when endorsing candidates and legislation – that our best friends will sometimes have to craft or support ugly legislation, because it proved to be the best way to proceed toward that most beautiful of goals.

Update Feb. 25: I have added a third part on the perceived viability of minor party candidates.