home

Politics: The Art of the Possible vs. the Art of Control

Big Tent Democrat and TChris today have written posts about politics. My question to BTD:

Why "Politics is the art of the possible" instead of "Politics is the art of controlling your environment?" If you do the latter, don't more things become possible?

Hunter Thompson's central premise was "Politics is the art of controlling your environment." Does that only apply to campaigns, not governing?

BTD thinks this is a great question and suggested I write it up in a separate post so here it is for anyone who wants to weigh in.

< How to Apply for a Job with Obama-Biden | Colorado Voters Reject Ban on Affirmative Action >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Variables (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by Grue on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 01:04:31 PM EST
    I think this has to start with discussing what "controlling your environment" means. To me, that's a pretty broad range of ideas.

    It can include control over your image, how you are perceived by people and how well you are received by people. To a greater extent, it covers relationships with friends and more importantly, enemies and how you can appeal to their self-interest. By failing to control his expressions, his emotions, McCain gave us a handle to exploit, a sense of who he is that was detrimental to his campaign.

    It can include how you can take advantage of current events. For example, who do many/most people blame for the financial crisis and how can you leverage that information to craft your own message. How can you tap into what people are feeling, how can you tap into general bias to direct a message.

    It can include the tools you use to gather information and how well you understand that information in crafting a message. How effective are those tools, how are those tools perceived in terms of credibility, etc.

    It can include the tools you use to directly influence opinion, and that includes the people you employ, your surrogates. A lot of people are describing Rahm Emmanuel (for example) as...let's just say "abrasive". Maybe that's fine, so long as the man can use those traits effectively to influence people.

    It can even include your ability to define/redefine terminology. Take, for instance, words like "liberal", "mandate" or "bipartisan". I think it's obvious that the Republicans have been very effective here, taking ownership and getting people (ie. the media) to use those words in the way Republicans want. If you can, by simply describing something as "liberal", tap into negative, preconceived notions about what that particular word means, you can more easily establish a sort of control over people, not by appealing to their intellect but by exploiting their unconscious feelings and attitudes.

    It might be better to describe the environment as being a collection of variables. How many of those variables can you change or influence? What is out of your control, and can you neutralize it or turn it to your advantage?

    --

    From that perspective, I think I agree with Jeralyn...by controlling your environment, by taking control of more variables, you help define what is possible. Framing politics as "the art of the possible" is certainly more uplifting, more inspirational and thus a huge rhetorical tool. "The art of controlling your environment" is the commitment to identify and study the variables, understanding their weight (knowing it can change in the blink of an eye) and then effectively manipulating them to advance a position.

    I don't get the premise. (none / 0) (#1)
    by Fabian on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 12:07:20 PM EST
    You can control yourself the most completely.  I'm not sure what "your environment" means exactly.  But if you take it most simply, it would mean politics is who you choose to associate with.

    Those people will determine what is possible and probable.

    An interesting question (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 12:09:22 PM EST
    I'm still thinking.

    I'm kinda reminded (none / 0) (#3)
    by Steve M on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 12:14:17 PM EST
    of an administration which believed it could create its own reality.  Ultimately they failed because the facts on the ground won out.

    The lesson, I guess, is that the federal government has too big an environment for anyone to hope to control it all.

    Tell LBJ (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 12:17:41 PM EST
    (but for Vietnam, I think he would be remembered as one of the greatest Presidents).

    Parent
    Sure (none / 0) (#6)
    by Steve M on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 12:26:02 PM EST
    But LBJ's domestic program owed an awful lot to the tragic assassination of JFK.  Pretty hard to say no to the President when he wants to do things in his predecessor's memory.

    Parent
    expansion of "the possible" (5.00 / 0) (#11)
    by Coral on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 01:03:19 PM EST
    When LBJ twisted arms, etc., to get the Civil Rights, Voting Rights, and Medicare/Medicaid bills passed, he seized the opportunity to expand the possible beyond what conventional wisdom posited as "the possible" before.

    Obama's run in and of itself is an example of the expansion of the possible. Up until, say, Iowa much conventional wisdom was that an African-American could not win enough white votes to win the presidency. A lot of people didn't believe it was possible until sometime in the evening of  Nov 4 of this year.

    That experience alone should give progressives some leeway, at least in Obama's first term.

    I am not at all beguiled by the idea of "controlling the environment" for many of the reasons already mentioned.

    Parent

    But (none / 0) (#13)
    by Steve M on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 01:05:57 PM EST
    does your argument lead us to the conclusion that anything is possible?  Or simply the conclusion that "possible" generally means more than what the mainstream consensus believes is possible?

    The latter leaves us back at politics being the art of the possible, it just means that sometimes people are bad at gauging what is actually possible.

    Parent

    Maybe it takes a visionary (none / 0) (#16)
    by Coral on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 11:18:10 AM EST
    of sorts to see beyond the margins of what conventional wisdom deems to be "possible."

    Parent
    Maybe they are equivalent (none / 0) (#4)
    by Manuel on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 12:16:01 PM EST
    The current financial crisis places limits on what Obama can do politically.  Obama can gain control over this environment by identifyng what is possible.

    Political Limits May Be Expanded by the... (none / 0) (#8)
    by santarita on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 12:30:10 PM EST
    financial crisis.  In a time of crisis, measures that might have been unpalatable to a segment (e.g., laissez-faire idealogues) become palatable if they look like they will work.  

    Parent
    Both phrases can be used to describe this (none / 0) (#10)
    by Manuel on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 12:50:04 PM EST
    The political actor becomes aware that something which wasn't posible before is now possible.  He or she gets control of the environment through messaging, setting expectations and so on.  It's a top down vs bottom up view of the same thing.  Sometimes you can make something possible that wasn't possible previously through messaging.

    Parent
    Mostly (none / 0) (#7)
    by OldCity on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 12:26:41 PM EST
    because politics is a reactive milieu.  

    Most political goals are need driven.  Very rarely do you anything that could truly be called a new initiative, in the sense that the idea and plan arose from within the administration.

    Americans must be cultivated to first see a need, then the opportunity cost of failure to address the need.  

    No President can truly control his environment, as it were.  The experiences and expectations of the population are too diffuse.  Sure, there are commonalities, like desire for a common defense.  But then you have to answer more questions: How?  How big will the military be?  Who get to serve?  Do gays?  Do we continue to rely on preemption as a philosophy?  Do we need more infrastucture?  Questions such as those drive the political equation; the administration must decide in most cases according to the greatest good for the most.  Thus, passage of any bill depends upon a cogent reading of the prevailing opinions throughout the country.

    That's why I think that anyone who desires an aggressive progressive agenda is doomed to disappointment.  Even though Democrats now have the House and Senate and the executive, it would be foolish to assume expediency, except in the most extreme cases (s-chip, for example).    

    Controlling the Environment... (none / 0) (#9)
    by santarita on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 12:38:42 PM EST
    I'm not sure that I understand what that means.

    If it means manipulating the public's perception about the environment (which I think Steve M discussed upthread), then the Republicans tried that but reality, as they say, bites.

    If, on the other hand, it means changing the existing situation so that it benefits your agenda, I guess that is doable.  Using the financial crisis as an example, Obama could push a series of measures that does more than kick the can down the road.  

    Hmm... in good times I might agree, but (none / 0) (#14)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 04:38:33 PM EST
    I see this nation confronted with numerous crises.
    Obama's environment is that he is coming into office in a time of national emergency---even global emergency on the issues of finance and global warming.
    I do not think this environment hurts Obama's ability to effect change---quite the contrary.
    I expect people are ready for large shifts in national priorities. I only hope they are through listening to Republican pseudoscience on global warming, which is really the only obstacle to a sensible CO2 plan;equally, I pray that they are numb to the lures of Republican pseudo-economics as well.

    Environment determines possible (none / 0) (#15)
    by essaywhuman on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 06:12:26 PM EST
    Politics is the art of the possible on the level of political expediency, but on a meta level, politics is surely the art of controlling your environment.
    In terms of the day to day running of government, passing of bills, in normal times, you are limited by the ideas that are out there and how accepted they are. In terms of politics and government, ideas are not judged on their merits so much as how accepted that idea has become. When people refer to "art of the possible" politics, they are talking about the maneuvering, wrangling, debating, negotiating, etc of any typical political debate. Democrats want this, Republicans want that. When people are referring to "art of controlling your environment" politics, then we get a bit deeper.

    The Overton Window, from wikipedia:  

    It describes a "window" in the range of public reactions to ideas in public discourse, in a spectrum of all possible options on an issue. Overton described a method for moving that window, thereby including previously excluded ideas, while excluding previously acceptable ideas. The technique relies on people promoting ideas even less acceptable than the previous "outer fringe" ideas. That makes those old fringe ideas look less extreme, and thereby acceptable. Delivering rhetoric to define the window provides a plan of action to make more acceptable to the public some ideas by priming them with other ideas allowed to remain unacceptable, but which make the real target ideas seem more acceptable by comparison.

    The degrees of acceptance of public ideas can be described roughly as:

        * Unthinkable
        * Radical
        * Acceptable
        * Sensible
        * Popular
        * Policy

    The Overton Window is a means of visualizing which ideas define that range of acceptance by where they fall in it, and adding new ideas that can push the old ideas towards acceptance merely by making the limits more extreme.

    This is what the Republicans have excelled at. They pour millions into think tanks, media outlets, lobbying, and outreach efforts to promote their ideas. It doesn't matter that they might be extreme in most peoples eyes - it creates a powerful infrastructure of support for those ideas because they have succeeded in making them mainstream. Simple as that. Republicans badly dominate this game - just read this article from The American Prospect: http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_mighty_wurlitzer  This is why on our side, the blogosophere is important, and supporting our think tanks like Economic Policy Institute, Center for American Progress, Children's Defense Fund, etc are so important. In terms of controlling your environment, thats where the battle takes place. The politicians are playing a different type of game that is framed by that larger battle.

    So my answer is, politics is both. They go together. And this is what people are referring to when they talk about realignment elections. This season has produced a significant shift in mainstream attitudes towards progressive policies (actually, it has just illustrated shifts that have already been taking place). Everyone wants to play the "art of the possible" game and be famous, but without the infrastructure to support it...well you get the Democratic party circa 2000-2005.