Good Policy Makes Good Politics

So I walked into the Ben & Jerry's ice cream shop near my apartment several months ago and heard the two employees debating something I found intriguing. They stopped debating (a friendly debate) long enough to take my order, and then to ask my opinion on the matter.

The question was, "are all good acts by people motivated by self interest?" "Person One" took the position that people do good things for others not because they want to do good for others, but because they want the "feel good" that comes from doing good things. "Person Two" in the shop argued, rather ineffectively, to the contrary.

"Person One" made a compelling argument, but I disagreed, suggesting that while many people may do good things only so that they may feel good about themselves, there an equal number of people out there who practice what Aristotle defined as "true friendship": that is, doing good to another for the other's own sake.

I added, "it naturally follows that doing good things for other people produces a good feeling for the do-gooder, just as the laws of physics require that an action results in an equal/opposite reaction" (the laws of the universe - be they spiritual or karma - dictate that by doing good things, you will feel good as a result). But the "feel good" that comes from doing the good thing for another person is only an afterthought (or, side benefit) to Aristotle's "True Friend."
_______________________________________________________________

Transitioning from the world of friends to the world of politics, it is said that "good policy makes good politics." The idea being, if you make the correct decision about a matter of policy, the people (who define politics) will eventually see the correctness of your decision, and thereby support you. Hence, good policy makes good politics.

Now, if you're like Person One in the ice cream shop who argues that people do good things only out of self interest, you would then look at the actions of a policy maker and think cynically: "what's his self-interest in this? There must be an angle." Truly, one who looks at life through these cynical eyes does not believe that good policy makes good politics. Rather, "good politics makes good politics." Sadly, it has been my observation that there are many people in this world who look at the world through the prism, or philosophy, of "good politics makes good politics."
___________________________________________________________

Narrowing this down a little more: Mitt Romney dropped out of the Presidential Race today. (Now, don't get distracted by Republicans and Democrats, Conservatives and Liberals, or the rightness or wrongness of certain issue positions. Stay with me here on the big picture.) As soon as Mitt's speech was done today, the commentators were abuzz about what his motivations were.

In dropping out now he has: 1) saved himself millions of his own money; 2) dropped out on a high note with the conservative base of the Republican Party; 3) garnered untold admiration from the moderates in the Republican Party for handing the early nomination to McCain; and 4) positioned himself beautifully for another race in the future. Did he do all of this for those self-interested reasons? Certainly, these are all upshots of his decision.

Or, did he do it for the reasons he stated: that he loves this country, and finds it more important for the Republicans to quickly coalesce around one candidate whose position on one central issue - the war on terror - is in stark contrast with that of the other two candidates still battling it out in the Democrat primaries?

So, the question is posed: What motivates Mitt Romney? Self interest, or doing things for the good of others?

This question has vexed just about everyone on the right and left side of the political spectrum since he threw his hat in the presidential race. His positions on certain issues have changed during his campaigning for the Kennedy Senate seat back in 1994, for the Gov. of Mass. in 2002, his governance in Mass, then his campaigning for President in 2007. Many have noted that he has changed his positions on certain key issues during this 13 year span in politics from more liberal-leaning positions to conservative positions. These changes in positions have been at convenient times for his political career, but have also corresponded with other events.

The National Journal ran a cover story on Mitt on February 9, 2007 called "Journey To The Right." I read this article with interest back when it was published, and have referred back to it many times since. While it offers observations that support both that Mitt could be a "good politics makes good politics" type or a "good policy makes good politics" type; I couldn't shake a few statements made in it: "From 1994 to Goodridge [a court case involving gay marriage in MA], he was a Republican businessman in Massachusetts who had conservative sensibilities on some things, but not on everything, because he had never been forced to grapple with them."

It goes on to offer another observation: "Other Romney friends think, however, that he was seduced by what one called the "cheap applause" of conservative audiences."

In other words, it could be either one. But on the issue of stem cell research, and the issue of abortion, he made changes in his positions under the same conditions as he did with gay marriage.

The article reads on: "Almost a year after Goodridge, Romney says, he had another epiphany, again derived from his impending confrontation as governor with a burning moral question [embryonic-stem-cell research]."

When I completed the entire article (which drew no conclusions as to Mitt's motivations), I went back and reread those passages. Something about that seemed familiar. Indeed, as I thought about it, it made sense. How many times have I laid out my beliefs or positions on certain issues (be they political, religious, or otherwise), and then changed them once I actually had to "grapple with them for the first time"? It is interesting, I think, what first-hand experience with an issue can do to your perspective on that issue. Sometimes, I have noticed, my positions have changed. Sometimes they have been solidified.

Did Mitt do it to enhance his future ambitions, or did he do it because he, for the first time, grappled with them, gained a better understanding about the nature of the issues, and changed his positions based on those lessons learned? No one but himself can really know what his motivations were for changing his positions on these key social/political issues.

But, I'm a believer in giving people the benefit of the doubt - especially when I've had similar experiences. I can safely say the same for Obama whose time in the Illinois Legislature has been characterized as a left wing radical politician. However, in the US Senate, his record and rhetoric has moderated. His voting record in the Senate still is on the left wing of the party (as outlined by this week's National Journal), but the careful observer will notice he has moderated over time. Could this moderation be a result of political expediency? Perhaps. Could it be because experience in grappling with these issues is actually moderating his opinions? Perhaps.

Just as I offer Mitt the benefit of the doubt, so I must with Obama. I don't necessarily agree with Obama's positions on several issues, but I won't accuse him of political expediency until there is a record replete with "I'm for it, now I'm against it, now I'm for it, now I'm against it." As the beloved Peggy Noonan once wrote, "Everyone should be afforded the right to change their position once."

What's the point of all this? Well, I guess I have a couple conclusions:

First: Just because a person appears to have "self-interested" reasons for doing something, it
doesn't mean that self interest is the reason why that person did it.

Second: Just because someone does something solely because it's the right thing to do, it doesn't mean they won't benefit from it.

Like I argued with the ice cream guy, sometimes people do the right thing because they think it's the right thing to do...then, as a side benefit, good things happen.

Same thing with Mitt today. He did the right thing, I think, because he thought it was the right thing to do for his party and country. And, as a side benefit, he's made himself a god in the Republican Party.

Good policy does make good politics.