What compels men to pursue a vocation in politics?
Adam Sieff, Staff Writer
Ideology: Liberal | Writing from: Columbia University
For sure, a career in politics grants a feeling of power. The knowledge of influencing men, of participating in power over them and of holding in one’s hands the pre-woven fabric of historically important events makes the political profession far more seductive than that of, say, accountancy or advertising. But what kind of a man must one be if he is to be allowed to place his hand on the wheel of history?
Here, an ethical question arises that commands our consideration. For in politics, power is surely currency, but it cannot be an end in and of itself. The true politician works with the striving for power as an unavoidable means. He may even feel called toward it – that competitive energy thirsting for domination in the deepest fibers of his being. Such a “power instinct” is a perfectly normal quality for him to possess. But the sin against the sublime spirit of the political profession, a virtue of its public character, begins where this striving for power becomes a quest for self-intoxication and not an instrument wielded responsibly in the service of a “cause.”
And what of this “cause,” what public objective can be worthy of political pursuit? Some might say ideology: “liberalism,” “cosmopolitanism,” “libertarianism,” “conservatism,” etc. But these are just words with infinite interpretations, none of which bear any clear substantive value. More importantly, an ideology is a crude abstraction, an inarticulate and incomplete series of hollow maxims and talking points. No, ideology cannot be a cause unless it delineates some form of the Good. So equipped, ideology breaks free of its childish, reductivist trappings to emerge as true moral, social and political philosophy.
If this is the mould of the true politician, the proper and ethical form of the political vocation, what can we say about our political society today?
Today, our political society suffers from just such an irresponsible and non-instrumental thirst for power. These are the demagogues, would-be prophets, standing on platforms colored by every ideology and preaching the rhetoric of “Progress” or “Return” to their huddled, excited and desperate disciples below. Their lack of objectivity tempts them to strive for the glamorous semblance of power instead of actual instrumental power; what is worse, their irresponsibility suggests that they actually enjoy this power merely for power’s sake without any identifiable substantive purpose.
But what is most concerning is how our political system has fallen into a vicious cycle that reinforces this behavior. Institutionally, individually and ethically we have not only empowered, but actually commanded our politicians to pander and peddle by reducing politics to a marketplace of voter preferences. Politics have become so direct and democratized that we elect our Senators in the same manner that we purchase our cigarettes. Indeed, many who have been trained to sell cigarettes have found lucrative careers “selling the President,” and vice versa.
In sum, we have drained our political process of its philosophic content. The democratization of our political system—a noble maneuver by its own right—occurred without a parallel, necessary and proportionate investment in civic education. The result has been to change the grounds upon which candidates seek office, depriving the political elite—those most likely to have had a superb civic education—of their incentive to make philosophical appeals on the campaign trail. Absent the structural incentive to bear a philosophic cause, many politicians, even those like our President with perhaps philosophic ambitions, have settled on ideology and rhetoric.
However, not every politician is like our President. For many among the political elite, and even among the not-so elite, power has become not just the means, but in fact the end of politics. This is a cruel perversion that manifests itself in the corruption and ineffectiveness of those we send to Washington, and the American people know it. Unfortunately, most Americans are unable to see through anything but their own ideological lenses. They can consequently only explain the problems of our government in terms of ideological impurity or, worse, ideological opposition.
We are a people lost in the shadow-play of our caverns with little chance of breaking free to find the sun behind us without a reinvestment in civic education that re-emphasizes citizenship in supplement to individuality. If there remain any true politicians in America today, there can be no greater cause to which they can devote their powers than this one. We can only hope it is not too late.

You are correct about the declining level of political intellectual civic education. Perhaps it has been supplanted by the exponential growth of media intensity–with overwhelming non-philosophical 24/7 hour news cycles, instant Internet reactions, and an increasing emphases on extremism–on both ends of the spectrum. Thoughtful philosophy is being challenged, if not replaced, by narrow one-issue power blocks and the overwhelming importance of advertising to win elections by “selling ideas” of narrow issues, like brands of bottled water, in too many “safe seats” in legislatures. This encourages primary candidates to “lean to their bases”. This same technology which allows instant and omnipresent advocacy–and ceaseless “us vs. them” diatribes and mind sets–increasingly degrades the commonality of our shared condition of citizenship.
We have been uniquely able to maintain a two party system–really a two coalition system–for generations, unlike other democracies, but this system has been pummeled more egregiously each election cycle since the Vietnam War, accelerating with the efforts to impeach Clinton for essentially political reasons and the growth of the radical right and its religio-social agendas. Doubtlessly this group has highjacked the Republican Party.
Sadly, the civility and restraint of earlier decades are evaporating into a “we win if they lose” mentality. (Some believe this began with the disillusionment of the Watergate generation and grew as technology created better means of polarizing the citizenry. (I recommend “Conservatives without Conscious” by former Nixon counsel John Dean (2006) as an excellent social scientific analysis of the evolution of the Republican Party from the tenets of Bill Buckley and Barry Goldwater to those of Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin.) Maybe the proliferation of open primary elections, as is being proposed in California and elsewhere, will diminish extremism and engender a growth of power sharing to truly promote the common welfare, not special interests.
For now, the recent Supreme Court decision to allow unfettered corporate electioneering threatens to promote further the financial rewards of wielding political “power” as an economic tool rather than as a tool to further philosophical and social goals for the benefit of all.
I remain hopeful that a new generation of socio-political activists, schooled in the role of political philosophy as a means of social progress as opposed to a smokescreen for narrow agendas, can reverse this regrettable trend.