The Swings of the Political Pendulum

The recent presidential election sets us on a still largely unknown direction by the nation’s new leadership. In politics and matters of political economy, prediction may look wise in the present but usually look foolish at a later time. Rather than predictions, we might consider some possibilities.

The Rejection of Excess, Not Conservative Principles

The pendulum has swung away from the Republican’s leadership but not necessarily away from principles of conservative governance. Polling shows these remain largely accepted among citizens.

What citizens do seem to have rejected are the unprincipled excesses and incompetence of the current administration, and the current administration’s unprincipled governance seems confirmed by its largely inarticulate and vague explanations and justifications as to exactly how their policies reflect anything of the founding principles that have made it possible for us to construct our advanced society.

If anything the Republicans’ politically pragmatic actions have rejected conservative policies and embraced the excesses of unconstitutional attempts to increase government power under cover of the need to deal with threats to our national well-being.

Superficial Politicians, Superficial Policies, their Goal of Power

When most of our political leaders aren’t rooted in society but are career game players in Washington their goals seem to center on finding a message that will be popular so that they can get elected and gain power. They want to be leaders who promise to take control, run the country, solve big problems. They do not aspire to leadership that subordinates its power to expanding people’s choices, respecting the diversity of citizens’ values, and protecting citizens’ constructive economic and social activities.

Their aspirations seem to focus on gaining more power, not principles of good government, and this focus on power often leads to excesses. Their credentials are political experience, not serious academic training or non-political leadership experience.

And they do not sound like ordinary people; they cannot use normal English to speak about principles to ordinary people. They instead use hackneyed phrases of political jargon, vague, overly general, without nitty gritty substantive meaning. They are not people we could imagine working in our community as an ordinary citizen. They are politicians who want more power so they can take over and run more aspects of our lives all justified by rhetoric of providing strong leadership to solve our problems.

It means the bigger pendulum of history may be driven by what citizens fear from unprincipled excesses in governance and power from either party. It is excesses in striving for power that has led to the wholesale rejection of the Republicans’ governance; the Republicans were not restrained by any deeper conservative principles that in the past appealed to citizens.

Reactionary Change In Leadership

As a result, we now have had an election signaling a rejection of Republican excesses. But the new leadership is still remarkably vague about whether it grasps guiding principles of a theory of governance or even what its policies will be. The new leadership may either contain the seeds of its own excesses if it remains unprincipled or it may develop an understanding of principles that produce a healthy, constructive society and that control the relationship between government and people.

Is this the new administration? If the citizens felt their fundamental problems with the Republicans were the excesses brought on by the Republicans “strong leadership” and that was unfettered by a principled understanding of the role of government, then the voters weren’t reacting to Republican or swinging to the Democrats; they were react to excess that was not born of principle. If the new administration cannot articulate and follow principles sensed to be proper by citizens, the new administration may produce a new set of unprincipled politicians who produce their own kind of excesses born of “strong leadership.”

The New Administration—More Superficial Power Grabbing or Principled Leadership?

So far we have largely had airy rhetoric given to broad, sweeping generalizations and vague promises drawing on the reactionary desire of people to fundamentally correct the current out of control and incompetent government. We need to see more of substance before predicting whether the new administration will eventually produce its own excesses and reaction from citizens.

The danger is that the new administration policies will continue to be composed of the vague goals of a hyper-articulate, hyper-charismatic man gifted in political speech. We do not have evidence yet that the new president actually has underlying principles and explanation of how our constitutional government is supposed to work and its proper relationship to people. He has offered amazing hopes and promises but without any clear analysis of the means to his ends. What tiny clues we have from his past service and voting give no evidence suggesting he understands basic principles of American governance.

Citizens aren’t concerned with principles and theories of governance and don’t take the time or effort to investigate and develop a theory of the relationship between government and society but they can sense excesses. They don't even seem to know what principles are. Even though they do not define the public policies they think proper, they can react to how policies play out. Citizens role is reactionary only and necessarily rather thoughtless regarding the underlying intellectual competence of a politician’s understanding of politician economy. Politicians’ can either help citizens understand the principled nature of their policies or if unprincipled and elected on superficial promises, to suffer rejection for their excesses.

More But Different Excesses or Principled Government?

While the new president may represent a major swing of pendulum, if the swing is not based on a fundamental theory and principled form of governance consonant with the constructive powers of American political economy, it may be only a reactionary alternative to the Republican’s recent excesses in governance and grabs for power. If so, the new administration may itself produce its own excesses. It remains to be seen but if the new leadership cannot articulate a substantive theory of governance, then we might predict another reactionary election. The time still remains ripe for change to be tied to principled governance by an articulate leader.