political philosophy

Thanks to my friend Sheila, who made me promise, I'm reading Frank Rich (NYTimes Sunday). This came during an inpsiring (and sobering) conversation about the state of our country and our church, and how we might act with integrity as members of each, and members of both. In his article from yesterday, "Patriots who love the troops to death" (http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/04/2988) Rich said:

The ranks of unreconstructed Iraq hawks are thinner than they used to be. One
particularly eloquent mea culpa can be found in today’s New York Times Magazine,
where the former war supporter Michael Ignatieff acknowledges that those who “truly showed good judgment on Iraq”might have had no more information than those who got it wrong, but did not make the mistake of confusing “wishes for reality."

Now, I've long loved the Times Magazine, but this article, "Getting Iraq Wrong." takes the cake. It's remarkable because Ignatieff doesn't appear to have time for mudslinging. He knows, as a politician himself, just how hard it is to be one. (Here's another link if the Times website won't let you in:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070804.wignatieffiraq0805/BNStory/National/home/?pageRequested=1

I like his thoughts on leadership in politics (maybe they appeal to me because I'm such an S on the Myers-Briggs): "In politics, everything is what it is and not another thing. Specifics matter more than generalities. Theory gets in the way." While I disagree with some of his thoughts about public and private life, I think his point is a crucial one.

In politics, learning from failure matters as much as exploiting success. Samuel Beckett's "Fail again. Fail better" captures the inner obstinacy necessary to the political art. Churchill and De Gaulle kept faith with their own judgment when smart opinion believed them to be mistaken. Their willingness to wait for historical validation, even if far off, looks now like greatness. In the current president the same faith that history will judge him kindly seems like brute stubbornness.

He criticizes Bush's leadership and decisions without calling him an idiot. He admits to his own similar missteps. He talks about the difference between being right and being trustworthy.

In my political-science classes, I used to teach that exercising good judgment meant making good public policy. In the real world, bad public policy can often turn out to be very popular politics indeed. Resisting the popular isn't easy, because resisting the popular isn't always wise. Good judgment in politics is messy. It means balancing policy and politics in imperfect compromises that always leave someone unhappy — often yourself.

Knowing the difference between a good and a bad compromise is more important in politics than holding onto pure principle at any price. A good compromise restores the peace and enables both parties to go about their business with some element of their vital interest satisfied. A bad one surrenders the public interest to compulsion or force.

Just as, in private life, a marriage or partnership is a union between two good forgivers, public and community life is a dance between good compromisers. Church, and state, take heed!