The purpose of politics is to serve the public interest, not one’s own. However, it appears that increasingly in the West, fewer and fewer aspiring “leaders” have a respect or understanding for the offices that they seek. More often than not, they are blinded by raging partisanship, uncompromising ideology and an unquenchable drive for positions of great power. Dogmatic politicians are the faces of politics today, and it seems that fewer and fewer policy-oriented individuals enter the arena.
What is encouraging is that some of the most notable Dartmouth alumni who have served in higher office were pragmatists. 41st Vice President and New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller, a member of the Class of 1930, though not immune to this desire for power, was notable in his willingness to do what was necessary for the common good, even if it was to the detriment of his presidential ambitions. “I’m not adopting ideology,” he once said, “I’m taking a pragmatic position out of necessity to preserve the well-being of the state and its growth.” Senator Daniel Webster, Class of 1801, understood politics in a similar way; though he sought after the presidency several times over, Webster was willing to take positions that he viewed as necessary for the preservation of the Union, even if unpopular amongst the general public.
Today, those who can be regarded as true statesmen are few and far between. Instead, our leaders are often the fiery heads of sectarian movements rather than prospective leaders of the nation. Criticisms leveled at such leaders typically extend to suggestions for greater bipartisanship or civility on politics. These two features have, unfortunately, rarely been defining characteristics of the Western political process. There appears to be a natural disposition to coalesce around political parties and to draw battle lines to protect the “in-group.” Though bipartisanship and civility are noble aspirations and important for a sustainable political system, the idea that these were previously established principles of politics is a romanticized notion of history. Yes, the politics of thirty years ago was far more civil than it is today, but many forget that incivility and in-group preference have unfortunately always been in the nature of politicians. Let me also be clear: pragmatism is non-ideological. It is an approach to politics that prioritizes policy-making, non-sectarianism and a broad national vision. There have been many pragmatists on the left, in the centre and on the right across the world: Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Charles DeGaulle and Brian Mulroney, to name just a few.
Rather, it is in spite of the lack of bipartisanship and the constant belligerence that statesmen used to rise as leaders. It was those who could adopt a personality in defiance of the base instincts of man when presented with the political arena, while still understanding thoroughly how to “play the game.”
Presidents John Adams and Thomas Jefferson are excellent examples of this. Both were statesmen, but Adams, the incumbent Vice President in 1796, was only narrowly able to beat Jefferson, and in 1800 was soundly defeated by Jefferson despite an otherwise strong presidency. Both men had differing but wide-sweeping visions of America, and both presented themselves as above the ordinary political processes. However, Adams struggled to play the game as effectively as Jefferson, who managed to stir the public outside New England against Adams’s Federalists, who faltered under the weight of internal power struggles, an inability to connect with the common man and weaker organization in spite of controlling the government. The campaign for the presidency in 1800 was tremendously bitter — only rivaled by campaigns over the past decade.
But both Adams and Jefferson have gone down in history as statesmen. Not so for many recent politicians who have played the game effectively. Why can’t both be done?
It seems to me that, of many causes, there are two important considerations: a lack of willingness on the part of qualified individuals to enter the fray and a lack of care toward legitimate policy beyond sloganeering and pork barrel politics.
First, it seems that qualified and accomplished individuals seldom involve themselves in politics. You can’t blame someone for wanting to avoid a career that leaves your every move open to scrutiny and thrusts your family into the spotlight. For those that want to do good in politics as opposed to promoting their own interests, there is little joy to be had in public office nowadays. The mudslinging is entirely uninteresting to someone who cares more about governance than the adrenaline of an X or Instagram debate.
Second, those who do enter politics care little for legitimate policy issues, typically running without any defined program for the country. As a result, politics becomes entirely emotional in its nature, grand visions of the future are no more, and leadership is merely provincial in its concept of the public good. When a nation only has politicians rather than policymakers, it will cease to function in the best interests of its citizens. I would ask you to consider the question, “where are the nation-building programs of the past?” Today, there is nothing akin to the Trans-Continental Railroad, the New Deal or the Eisenhower Interstate System. So often, proposed solutions are half-measures based on a political calculus.
Pragmatists have always been rare because politics inherently favours those who can play on passions. Policymaking is not “sexy,” as some would say, on its own. Pragmatists have always needed to “play the game,” no matter how frustrating it is that politics operates in this manner. Those pragmatists who have succeeded in the past have recognized that. Dogmatism is no virtue, but the rules of politics have been defined by partisans. Those pragmatists that wish to succeed in the future need to stop lamenting about a non-existent past. Take a page from Jefferson, Rockefeller, Webster and others: organize effectively, while, unlike the rest of the political class, still focusing on the issues that matter and the higher calling of serving the public, not oneself.
Opinion articles represent the views of their author(s), which are not necessarily those of The Dartmouth.
Luke Montalbano ’27 is an opinion editor and writer. He is from Vancouver, Canada and is majoring in Government and minoring in History. On campus, Luke is a Dickey Center War and Peace Fellow, the Co-President of the Federalist Society of Dartmouth, the President of the American Conservation Coalition of Dartmouth and President of the John Quincy Adams Society.
