Legislating and Living Meaningfully

Qoheleth in Ecclesiastes: "What is twisted cannot be straightened; what is lacking cannot be counted."

 ____________________

For those of you who don’t know, or haven’t guessed, I’m seriously considering running for the House of Representatives in LD 7.  I will run only if it is a meaningful act, and by meaningful I mean, simply, that my presence in the legislature will make a difference in the lives of at least one of my constituents. Otherwise, why legislate?  If the twisted cannot be straightened, and the lacking cannot be counted, why would I want to untangle and enumerate? 

My answer, of course, is that I believe that good legislation, though always flawed, offers incremental improvement both in individual lives and in the character and quality of society. But watching Arizona’s budget unfold, from a safe distance, as well as Obama’s autocratic destruction of our nation’s free(r) economy, causes me to doubt my political optimism.  I find myself vacillating between a feeling of helplessness, the Francis Fukuyama-Qoheleth view of politics as meaningless and futile, and a feeling of optimism, the hope that my small political acts conjoined with the acts of other politicians will enlarge the social space that ordinary people need to craft lives a wee bit better.

Fukuyama earnestly thought that Soviet-era communism had been replaced with a stable European-style socialism.  Thus, the end of history.  With total socialism, history will reach some sort of culmination, a thesis between capitalism and communism, a compromise that works.

But the second half of his book, though less well known, betrays his optimistic view of history. Even the title suggests that the second half of the book holds clues to understanding the first half: The End of History and the Last Man. 

The last man?  As in, the last man standing?  Or, as in, Nietzsche’s vision of a society that had devolved, because of consumption and frivolity, to der letzte Mensch, the last man?

I do believe history is moving, inexorably, toward a terminus that my political acts cannot change or influence. I do believe that it ends, not in a political stasis, but in a way I cannot fathom or articulate.  I see history, therefore, as linear, not cyclical or static.  And because of history’s linearity, my wee acts have wee significance.  They add to history as a drop adds to the volume of water in a moving river – my acts are not much, perhaps not measurable, but still significant in that they add to the total flow. 

There will never be der letzte Mensch, thankfully. Political stability will always elude us.  Certainly history won’t end with socialism.  But my small acts may help create a better moment in history. 

And, with that, I’ll be satisfied.

 

  

Comments

[Petro]

The question to run for office or not should not be merely dependent on whether you can do good *in* office, but also upon how you can influence the race even if you do NOT make it in. There are ways that well spoken intellectual conservatives can influence the very discussions we have in ways that are useful even if ultimately you are not elected.

As to what you can do in the legislature, consider not only the legislation you would help create or instanciate, but also the legislation that might NOT get created because you are there, laws that get voted down or significantly changed.

I believe it is very likely that 2010 will be a blood bath for the Democrats--if the economy doesn't turn around soon there won't be enough re-growth to help them. "We" (conservatives, not Republicans) need to get *smart* *conservative* people in the party to at least guide the GoP in the right direction. The GoP is mostly concerned with winning, not with the Right Thing. Somehow we need to do both.

If you do nothing but stand aside history and yell STOP it's worth doing.

[Kristen Burroughs]

I rarely comment on postings, but yours, Petro, intrigues me.

Many years ago, an artist-friend explained to me the concept of "negative space." I've never been the same! She told me that when I look at a building, for example, that I should mentally block out the building and look at its surroundings -- I should study the skyline, the adjoining buildings, etc. Only after studying the context or negative space should I look at the "thing itself."

In a political context, your comments reminded me of negative space because its not just what I hope to do, my positive acts, but what I hope to prevent. I saw only myself, not the bigger picture. I saw only my own political vision, not the larger context of warring visions.

And you corrected me. Thank you.

[Linda]

This conversation was enlightening. Thank you both.