Causes versus Institutions

By Mike Koetting September 17, 2024

Just before taking off on a short trip with our grandson, I read a review in the Washington Post of a political thriller, Charles McCarry’s Shelley’s Heart, that it described as “unnervingly prescient.” While written 25 years ago, plot elements include a highly contested vote count, renegade Arab terrorists, impeachments and a rogue Supreme Court. Sounded just like the thing for a trip to Washington DC.

It was, as promised, an exciting thriller that I had a hard time putting down. It also turned out to be an interesting meditation on the philosophical orientations toward politics and government, specifically, what is the right balance between strongly-held values and maintaining the institutions of governing?

Shuffling the Script

Shelley’s Heart particularly grabbed my attention because it makes the “liberals” the bad guys. In the book, they actually did alter election results. Although the people who did this had other issues, their primary motive was their conviction that a right-wing victory would do permanent damage to the country.  McCarry was enormously skeptical of a small group deciding what was better for the nation as a whole. He didn’t have much good to say about the hard right, but his real scorn was for folks from Yale thinking they knew better than the rest of the country. (I am not sure why he was so focused on pillaring Yale.)

I am used to thinking that people would bend the Constitution to make America great again or to outlaw abortion. By reversing the political polarity, the book forced me to consider the nature of the problem removed from the current set of political players, who badly skew the consideration. When “de-personalized” in this way, it is easier to be reminded of the importance of preserving a broadly values-based government that allows for differences in values, even uncomfortable ones. Indeed, to the extent there is a hero in this book, it is the Speaker of the House, an alcoholic leach who gets caught red-handed groping a woman. But he is clear-eyed about the importance of preserving the country from people who believe their cause is more important than the institution.

Structural Pillars Allow for Dynamism

Democracy depends on two things: a broad set of communal values and institutions to interpret and, as necessary, protect the values. Thus, while any particular institution is not an end in itself, institutions are an essential mechanism for us to live out democratic values.

For instance, as I have commented before, freedom of speech is a critical framing element for our society. But the obvious cases are obvious and it is the difficult cases that bedevil us. How we go about deciding those cases—that is, how we operationalize the value—is what ultimately sets the rules.

These operating rules don’t get set by the Talmudic study of prescribed texts to come up with the definitive answer. Rather, the rules get debated and are ultimately decided by the institutions created to make those decisions, typically the courts. What emerges is not an answer for all time. The world changes. Maybe too much for some people, maybe not enough for others. But either way, the institutions need to somehow muddle through what past is worth keeping and what new is worth adopting.

Maintaining the institutions that do this work is an essential chore to protect democracy. Yair Zivan, in an Atlantic article that I highly recommend, contrasts the commitment to institutions with populism—which he defines as unrelenting adherence to a solution, inability to see opposite points of view, unwillingness to compromise and a sense that support of the cause bestows moral superiority. Populism is an equal opportunity trap into which the right or left can fall. When people believe they have a cause so sacred that whatever means are acceptable, they have strayed into populist territory.

Reality based democracy is very different. It assumes our imperfect world yields only partial solutions. These allow us to manage tensions between competing values, many of which—in proper portions—are part of the amalgam that holds society together and creates the possibility of a more successful society. The institutions should make sure that no one is entirely overlooked and no one viewpoint sweeps the table.

Not Simply Bowing to the Inevitable

Zivan emphasizes that commitment to institutions should not be a position that society reluctantly retreats to in the face of political difficulties. It requires—deserves–enthusiasm and hope, because this is how real progress will get made. Revolutions obtain more sudden change, but all too often wind up with some absolute values that over time turn out to restrict human growth more than helping it. (It may be instructive that the American Revolution, all things considered, set out to be modest change…and only subsequently became something great, even if still incomplete.)

At the Democratic convention, Pete Buttigieg reminded us about the transformation in the world for him, his husband, and their two adopted children from something that was “literally impossible as recently as 25 years ago” to something that is now a simple fact performed every morning at their kitchen table. Not everyone sees this as a good thing, but most of the country—having had a chance to think it over—believes this is okay. It happened through organizing and persuasion and politics. And it happened because we have institutions that allow divergent values to be openly debated, considered and ultimately to change attitudes and the laws.

Accepting the criticality of the institutions by itself doesn’t settle that much. It is just a framework in which we should conduct our campaigns, govern our country and live out our values peacefully with people who, while recognizing the framework, have different specific values.

But it does remind us, in a very visceral way, why the leadership of the current Republican Party is so craven. They know what Donald Trump is. They know the brand of populism he is selling is toxic to real democracy because it does not respect the institutions, in either spirit or letter. They understand how his concept of the presidency is inimical to the kind of institutions that foster democracy. But they are willing to put all that aside because he is their only shot at maintaining power in the short run.

Of course, this raises the question of where does my abhorrence for a candidate (and his party) verge into the kind of “religious” fervor that Shelley’s Heart warns against? Trumplicans frequently accuse Democrats of taking steps just because they hate Trump or because they would do anything to keep him from winning. Should I be worried that I am being blinkered by my own views?

At least for now, I am comfortable in believing Trump is a menace to not just my specific values, but to the overall framework of our government. Trump’s persistent trading in the politics of hate and division is disqualifying. The unprecedented number of otherwise Republicans and former administration officials who are raising warnings supports my own sense that this is someone with whom I not only disagree with on specific issues, but who cannot be trusted with the keys to the government.

What we need is an enthusiastic and hopeful politics open to all and for all, that is race-blind and humane. Not that everyone can always be happy. The values differ too much. But compromise, nuance, partial solutions and willingness to figure out new approaches is the only shot at healing the current riffs in America.

Shelley’s Heart warns us against populism on both sides of the political spectrum. It is useful to be reminded of this, precisely because it is a time in which in which battle lines have been so starkly drawn. But, by the same token, we should not be even a little confused as to who is to be most feared in the coming election. Trump is as unacceptable as I think he is. Acknowledging that extremism is possible on both sides should not keep us from recognizing it when there is a clear and present danger.