When The Future Isn’t Working, Try The Past
By Scott R. Cooper, Crook County Judge
This column originally appeared in the Central Oregonian, January 2007
Sir Robert Walpole is best remembered as the first prime minister of England. He is also memorable as the longest serving prime minister in English history. Walpole first entered Parliament in 1701 and served until 1744—a time when the British government was as bitterly divided between two major parties as the United States seems to be today.
Early in his career, Walpole experienced first-hand the downside of partisanship and party-infighting. In 1712, his party split itself into separate, quarrelling factions. As a result, the party temporarily lost its control of the majority, and in the resulting political bloodbath that followed, Walpole was imprisoned in the Tower of London for six months.
His political fortunes were unaffected by that setback, and by 1721, Walpole’s party was back in charge with Walpole himself determined not to fall further victim of partisanship.
Thus, Walpole launched in earnest a career intended to keep his party in power (and presumably himself out of jail) by emphasizing in his world a hitherto unknown idea: politics ought to be “polite”.
Although he was much criticized for doing it, Walpole introduced into English politics the very radical idea that politics and politicians should characterize themselves through the observance of extravagant courtesies toward one another and by not taking positions which deeply divided the country. Walpole’s administration emphasized areas of agreement: expanded trade, reduced taxation, cutting the national debt and reducing involvement in foreign wars. (Is this starting to sound familiar?)
On the political side, he used his considerable personal skills to eliminate from parliamentary debate vicious personal attacks. By controlling the agenda carefully to allow only those matters which enjoyed overwhelming popular support to come to a vote, he forced members of Parliament to vote together in the public interest instead of strengthening their political divisions by dividing into partisan camps.
Walpole was derided by his contemporaries as a “do nothing” leader who avoided the serious issues of the day in the interests of maintaining political peace and harmony, but modern historians are more generous. The long view is that this was the period when Britain was radically made over as the leading commercial and economic power of the World. Art, architecture and learning thrived. The modern political system vesting ultimate authority in elected leadership was perfected. Science and exploration flourished. Military power was strengthened, and territorial acquisitions laid the foundation for the future British Empire. If this is a “do nothing” legacy, bring it on!
Walpole’s Britain faced four essential crises at his accession to power: The tone and practice of the legislative system was so partisan that neither party was generally believed to be representing the interests of the public at large, and each vote taken seemed to drive the system farther apart, not bring it back together. The nation’s ongoing entanglement in foreign military adventures was widely viewed as out of control and there was a general sense that the national interest was not being served by the amount of blood and treasury being poured into these affairs. While experts insisted that the economy of the nation was fine, the average citizen couldn’t quite shake that worried feeling that downturn might be just around the corner, and daily media and politics seemed obsessively focused on religious, social and philosophical topics that, while diverting, didn’t seem central to the real issues of the day.
Where Britain was when Walpole inherited the mantle of leadership feels a lot like where the United States and the State of Oregon are today.
Harry Truman once said famously “The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know.” I like that quote, and I think it is true.
I think there are some instructive lessons for today’s politicians to be learned from the steps and missteps of the British parliamentary leaders of the early Eighteenth Century. As new majorities take control in Washington, D.C., and Salem, Oregon they will be wise if they look to Walpole’s example in setting their own agendas:
A successful Congress and Legislature will navigate carefully among those issues allowed to come to the floor for a vote. It will force votes on issues that matter to average citizens such as keeping the economy healthy, managing the national debt, improving the quality of education, ensuring access to healthcare, and continuing down the path of disentangling ourselves in a prudent way from the political mess in the rest of the world. Some issues near and dear to the hearts of individual congressmen or legislators may be shelved for future debate in the interests of pursuing an agenda which enjoys national support today.
Leadership will deal fairly and even-handedly with both sides of the aisle, ensuring that members of Congress and the Legislature are tasked with pursuing solutions to problems which match their passions and talents, not just randomly assigned committee work in a manner intended to shore up party control in future elections. Debate over legitimate policy choices will be encouraged and tolerated by leadership. Debate intended to promote one party at the expense of the other will be squelched, and repeated violators of the prohibition on partaking in partisan antics will be penalized by loss of influence, position and the ability to speak further.
There are plenty of people in the capitols of Washington and Salem who will say this can’t be done. The approach is both Pollyannaish and naïve. This approach simply amounts to putting off until tomorrow what you can’t get done today. A charge might be leveled that upheaval, chaos and partisan trumpeting are simply the birthing pangs of true greatness.
Perhaps, but I ask you a simple question: Is the path we’re currently on working for you? It isn’t for me, and in our personal lives, when the future isn’t working, most of us have learned to try something different. To find out way again, we return to the tried and true.
That’s where I’m at just now watching our political system, and in the Walpolian approach of 1721-1744, with its emphasis on simple courtesy and keeping the agenda focused on a simple, achievable and generally agreed upon agenda, I see a lot of parallel to our current situation. Washington and Salem would be wise to try and see it as well.
This column originally appeared in the Central Oregonian, January 2007
Modern politicians aren't the first to confront paralyzing partisanship
Sir Robert Walpole is best remembered as the first prime minister of England. He is also memorable as the longest serving prime minister in English history. Walpole first entered Parliament in 1701 and served until 1744—a time when the British government was as bitterly divided between two major parties as the United States seems to be today.
Early in his career, Walpole experienced first-hand the downside of partisanship and party-infighting. In 1712, his party split itself into separate, quarrelling factions. As a result, the party temporarily lost its control of the majority, and in the resulting political bloodbath that followed, Walpole was imprisoned in the Tower of London for six months.
His political fortunes were unaffected by that setback, and by 1721, Walpole’s party was back in charge with Walpole himself determined not to fall further victim of partisanship.
Thus, Walpole launched in earnest a career intended to keep his party in power (and presumably himself out of jail) by emphasizing in his world a hitherto unknown idea: politics ought to be “polite”.
Although he was much criticized for doing it, Walpole introduced into English politics the very radical idea that politics and politicians should characterize themselves through the observance of extravagant courtesies toward one another and by not taking positions which deeply divided the country. Walpole’s administration emphasized areas of agreement: expanded trade, reduced taxation, cutting the national debt and reducing involvement in foreign wars. (Is this starting to sound familiar?)
On the political side, he used his considerable personal skills to eliminate from parliamentary debate vicious personal attacks. By controlling the agenda carefully to allow only those matters which enjoyed overwhelming popular support to come to a vote, he forced members of Parliament to vote together in the public interest instead of strengthening their political divisions by dividing into partisan camps.
Walpole was derided by his contemporaries as a “do nothing” leader who avoided the serious issues of the day in the interests of maintaining political peace and harmony, but modern historians are more generous. The long view is that this was the period when Britain was radically made over as the leading commercial and economic power of the World. Art, architecture and learning thrived. The modern political system vesting ultimate authority in elected leadership was perfected. Science and exploration flourished. Military power was strengthened, and territorial acquisitions laid the foundation for the future British Empire. If this is a “do nothing” legacy, bring it on!
Walpole’s Britain faced four essential crises at his accession to power: The tone and practice of the legislative system was so partisan that neither party was generally believed to be representing the interests of the public at large, and each vote taken seemed to drive the system farther apart, not bring it back together. The nation’s ongoing entanglement in foreign military adventures was widely viewed as out of control and there was a general sense that the national interest was not being served by the amount of blood and treasury being poured into these affairs. While experts insisted that the economy of the nation was fine, the average citizen couldn’t quite shake that worried feeling that downturn might be just around the corner, and daily media and politics seemed obsessively focused on religious, social and philosophical topics that, while diverting, didn’t seem central to the real issues of the day.
Where Britain was when Walpole inherited the mantle of leadership feels a lot like where the United States and the State of Oregon are today.
Harry Truman once said famously “The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know.” I like that quote, and I think it is true.
I think there are some instructive lessons for today’s politicians to be learned from the steps and missteps of the British parliamentary leaders of the early Eighteenth Century. As new majorities take control in Washington, D.C., and Salem, Oregon they will be wise if they look to Walpole’s example in setting their own agendas:
A successful Congress and Legislature will navigate carefully among those issues allowed to come to the floor for a vote. It will force votes on issues that matter to average citizens such as keeping the economy healthy, managing the national debt, improving the quality of education, ensuring access to healthcare, and continuing down the path of disentangling ourselves in a prudent way from the political mess in the rest of the world. Some issues near and dear to the hearts of individual congressmen or legislators may be shelved for future debate in the interests of pursuing an agenda which enjoys national support today.
Leadership will deal fairly and even-handedly with both sides of the aisle, ensuring that members of Congress and the Legislature are tasked with pursuing solutions to problems which match their passions and talents, not just randomly assigned committee work in a manner intended to shore up party control in future elections. Debate over legitimate policy choices will be encouraged and tolerated by leadership. Debate intended to promote one party at the expense of the other will be squelched, and repeated violators of the prohibition on partaking in partisan antics will be penalized by loss of influence, position and the ability to speak further.
There are plenty of people in the capitols of Washington and Salem who will say this can’t be done. The approach is both Pollyannaish and naïve. This approach simply amounts to putting off until tomorrow what you can’t get done today. A charge might be leveled that upheaval, chaos and partisan trumpeting are simply the birthing pangs of true greatness.
Perhaps, but I ask you a simple question: Is the path we’re currently on working for you? It isn’t for me, and in our personal lives, when the future isn’t working, most of us have learned to try something different. To find out way again, we return to the tried and true.
That’s where I’m at just now watching our political system, and in the Walpolian approach of 1721-1744, with its emphasis on simple courtesy and keeping the agenda focused on a simple, achievable and generally agreed upon agenda, I see a lot of parallel to our current situation. Washington and Salem would be wise to try and see it as well.
posted by Scott Cooper | 9:45 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home