The Purpose of a Politician and Acting in the ‘National Interest’

Today I will be discussing what a politician’s job should be. I think this is interesting, and needs to be clarified. Too often, they seem to get some part of it wrong. Too many are ineffectual and seem purposeless. Too many feel incompetent. I think this is partly true, but needs to be examined in more detail before we pass judgement. Politics is hard, and is necessarily in a balance in a world where all people disagree and many are forced to conform to odd political positions.

What I want to establish is the following. First, that the politician’s job is hard and consists of being slightly disingenuous at times. Second, that a politician should aim for two things. The first is keeping power, the second is achieving what they conceive to be the ‘national interest’. I want to clarify what I mean this ‘national interest’ to be. It is something that needs to be worked out, but in an increasingly globalised society, it is increasingly clear what at least part of it consists of.

It is this ‘national interest’ that I want to dwell on to understand. Too often, we speak about it when not knowing what it actually is. I want to define it, and tell you why it means – in the world we live in today – the achievement of economic growth.

A Brief Dichotomy

The purpose of a politician, basically, is to create change they think is good for the interests of both their community and state. This can be broken down into two parts that have an essential, unavoidable tension. The first is that there is a need to get into power – and it is a first. One cannot change the world from one’s bedroom. You have to sell out a bit at the very least. The second is to create positive change. Do something that validates the reason you got into politics in the first place. This is obvious. Unless you are an empty shell of a politician who only likes power for the sake of power, there is no point of politics unless you are able to affect change. In this way, there is one purpose for the politician, which has a significant internal tension. Selling out for power and affecting positive change necessarily conflict. Sometimes, as a politician you will have to bite your tongue for political advantage. At other times, you may feel as if that prioritising integrity will better achieve your long term goals to create positive change. There thus is a central tension at the heart of politics.

This is the first thing to note. This, however, is by no means the end of my argument. I think we should also pick out a few things about what is desirable in a politician, and how this previously outlined dichotomy should work. To do this, I think we should have a look at the world politics takes place in.

The Nation explained

The world is a mess, especially these days. I will get onto why this problem is so pressing now, but the essential point needs to be addressed first. This is that in my view, the politician’s job can be easily described, this does not mean it is simple – it is a mesh of competing, complicated things. This mesh, however, should include some concern for the long-term interest for the nation as a whole. This needs to be specified as democracy tends to be bad at doing this – it is up to the politician, through skill and subtlety to fix this.

Let’s unpack this. The acknowledgement that we are one community, united by some form of common national or civic bond is an essential one for many reasons. For one, it is essential because it makes people moral actors in democracy. The sense that one should benefit the nation as a whole means bettering the whole community, not just a part of it. Given the rhetoric about nationalism currently, you may find this relatively hard to understand. So, let me explain.

A ‘nation’ is a community that believes itself to have some essential bond. This bond is part imagined – there is nothing rational or real that necessarily keeps us part of the nation. It is, instead, part of the essential and human quality of wanting to feel attachment to things that you have some share of, that belongs to you and defines part of your identity. People believe their nation stands for something relatively specific, and take a considerable degree of ownership of that thing. Those who thus share these qualities are those, like family, who feel close. Like family, they have a common sense of the world, a common set of experiences that make you feel some connection to them. This connection makes you care about your nation. As in the case of a family, you do not want bad things not to happen to your fellow nationals. If it was a choice, death to someone else’s relative and death to your relative, the choice you would make is the death of someone else’s relative. The same sort of thing happens with the nation. You do not want suffering to happen to your nation, often because, as in a family, it can lead to you suffering as well. This is important to stress, that like a family, it is not just a loose sense of loyalty. It is more like a deep interdependence. It is interdependence precisely because you have such intimate connection to them. Both economically and psychologically, you are intertwined with your nation. When bad things happen to things you have an intimate connection with, it makes an impact on your life. You feel the sting too. It is this that makes people care about the nation – that intense sense of interconnection and sense of close identification with it.

The myth of what the ‘nation’ is can bind us as one into something greater than ourselves. It is a community that we all feel part of, and agree that we all own. It therefore follows that the furthering of the nation represents the furthering of our collective interests. In contrast, the furthering of one part of the nation at the expense of the nation is the inverse of this. As a result, improving the power of the whole nation is important. The nation is the collection of the joint power of all those in a society, and so increasing the nation’s power and wealth increases the power and wealth of all those within it. Politicians therefore should look to having no internal or foreign threats, a strong economy and a stable democracy. These things, the long-term interests of the nation, are desirable – precisely because they make all within the national community able to achieve what we find desirable. In this way the ‘national interest’ is important.

Democracy and the National Interest

The problem is that, although the ‘national interest’ is desirable, democracy makes it hard to achieve. Democratic pressures are very often short-term fickle ones. Twitter, the tabloids and even broadsheets show this with relative clarity. They ‘hold the government to account’ on particular policies. This act of ‘holding government to account’ has some characteristics that make it simultaneously helpful and unhelpful. Like any sort of politics, the complicated aims a politician needs to balance competing things. By being held to account by the media, who form an image of what the government is for the public, politicians are put under pressure to react. This can be good. We don’t want bad people doing bad things in politics. For example, having a corrupt or complacent government is a bad thing. In the mid to late 1990s, John Major, although in many other respects an effective politician with nuanced views had a relatively complacent and ‘sleazy’ government. Edging on corrupt and built on a dangerous hubris, the media rightly held it to account. As a result, the image of a government that was both incompetent and elitist rightly became sufficient to oust it from office.

However, this quality of liberal democracies is also unhelpful for politicians. Being ‘held to account’ often means appealing directly to the populace on matters the populace is not well equipped to understand. A perfect example of this is that of the US Government’s action against the ‘Contras’ in Nicaragua. This is a clear example of a politician being above the fray to prioritise the national interest. President Ronald Raegan could not get funding from Congress for anti-Communist ‘Contras’ in Nicaragua. Ronald Raegan, who had much better information about the relative importance of strategic threats than Congressmen, decided that this was far too big of a threat to give up on. Raegan did something morally and constitutionally suspect to make this happen. Something that people would disapprove of in the short term, but in the long run acted in the national interest. To avoid the need for Congress to rubber stamp spending on arms, he sold arms illegally to the Iranians. The profits then would be paid to the executive arm of the USA, and this would consequently be spent on supporting the Contras. When this was found out there was outrage. This, to the Congressman with – generally – few foreign policy expertise, was seen as an infringement on the Separation of Powers. They had previously banned aid to the Contras with the ‘Boland Amendment’, and so ignoring this was clearly executive overreach. Congress took this approach because it saw the ‘Contras’ as problematic because of their involvement with the drug trade. This wasn’t the only reason, but the important thing to emphasise is that, according to Brown University, the opponents main line of argument was that US support was ‘immoral and potentially illegal’. In this sense in the clearest possible terms, this was a question of ‘holding the government to account’ conflicting with the national interest. If the USA was to stick by its national interest, it was surely to out the Communists from the Continent. In this sense, it sometimes makes sense to ignore the electorate and to go for what you think is best for the nation as a whole.

To conclude this section, the politician needs to balance competing things. Two of the most important of these are balancing doing something that the people want now with the long-term national interest. In a democracy, there is pressure to bend towards prioritising short-termism over the national interest. The politician must account for this by appropriately reacting to this pressure. The politician should therefore attempt to go for what they think is the national interest. Democracy will naturally place pressure on the government to be accountable, so the politician needs to focus on doing that other thing. This can be hard at times. The relentless pressure can get to you. It must be resisted, it is vital this is done, it is your moral duty to do so. It is therefore your moral duty as a politician to be prepared to be brave and this may at times involve being a bit disingenuous. You may feel a bit squeamish about this sort of politics - don’t be. If you have a spine and a mind, it is your duty.

PART 2 – WHAT IS THE NATIONAL INTEREST?

The Role of Globalisation

So, the job of a politician is to act in the national interest. What does this actually mean? Why is this uniquely different to anything else?

I hinted at what this meant by alluding to increasing the power and flexibility of all of us as a collective. This is part of the story. However, we need to understand why this is so pressing, especially in the world we live in.

This is where the current conditions of geopolitics comes into play. We live in a competitive world. The way in which power works, for whatever reason, today, is like a lot of other things a mesh of complication. However, there are some things we can establish, nevertheless. It is quite clear that it is very easy for economic success to yield power, which in turn can yield greater economic success and power. In this way, economic success is self-reinforcing and gives a positive feedback loop. I think that this is provable and explainable.

Essentially, globalisation has increased the level of interaction between different nations. Different nations have more entry points into other nations. It can be, for example, that a US firm like Apple employs a Taiwanese firm, like Foxconn, to make goods that employ people in a third country, in this case China. The Apple product may be then sold in another country, like Belgium. In this way, there is a greater degree of interconnection between economies. This interconnection between nations necessarily creates some degree of leverage. The US, as it has done, can threaten to pull the plug on China. This leverage and power is not just economic, although it is increasingly so as globalisation spreads.

As a result of the increasing degree of leverage on other nations, it is increasingly important to keep up with other nations in terms of economic success. If you don’t, you won’t just fall behind, you will lose international influence and become susceptible to be taken advantage of. Think of those Southern European countries which are politically non-influential in the EU and often blamed for their failed economies despite the EU systematically favouring northern Europe, particularly Germany. These Southern European countries are stuck in a system which takes advantage of them – which to exit will lead to a collapse in economic growth. They don’t have sufficient power to reform the whole Bloc, partly because of their lack of economic strength, so instead are stuck in an undesirable limbo. Those countries that do less well are liable to be at the mercy of those that do well. This is vitally important, as it means that falling behind makes it easier to fall further behind. Falling behind creates terrible economic conditions that are really expensive and tricky to get out of. If you have no productive industries, high debt and high unemployment, it is not obvious how you change your economy for the better. Socio-economic poverty and inequality are common here, which often is hard in turn to escape. In this way, having a poor economy in the modern world is one thing any country should want to avoid if it cares about its citizens.

Economic growth and the current account tend to be the two key measures of economic success here. Having both of these doing well tends to make other macroeconomic objectives easily achievable. Of course this rule has its exceptions – having high levels of debt or having high inflation can make a nation weaker and poorer – but generally, if you achieve both of these it gives the government sufficient flexibility to deal with other issues.

The Economy and the ‘National Interest’

How does this relate to the main point about what a politician is obligated to do? Well, essentially it morally binds them to a path of increasing economic growth. In our modern world, this is inescapable. There is so much pressure to improve economic growth, because falling behind is so terrible for an individual country. What’s more, as I will show, increasing economic growth is important is also important today because it facilitates other things as well. Having high economic growth staves off problems and enables politicians to promote what they think are the biggest problems in society, independent of popular pressures. Therefore, having high economic growth facilitates the ability to be a good politician that is able to pursue those thing that you care about, but the electorate does not.

Having a good economy tends to be important for two reasons. The first is that it makes it easier to achieve domestic political and economic aims. If you have a good economy, it is very easy to raise money. It is therefore very easy to invest in things that are in the national interest that the vast majority of people may be ambivalent to. Easy money makes it very easy for a politician to act in the national interest. As it is relatively painless to invest the windfalls of a good economy into things which the electorate may not really care about. In contrast, when the economy is doing badly, the inverse is true. This makes it imperative for economic growth to be promoted. If the economy is doing well, it makes it easy to achieve whatever may be in the national interest. It may be that this may be that Democracy is failing, as it is currently in certain places across the globe. In a world where people think in terms of economics – be it how many economic goods they can afford or where they work – it is very easy to satisfy them by providing economic results. By improving the quality of life in those areas left behind by globalisation, it would be possible to quash the vast majority of dissatisfaction. This is the world we live in. Predominantly, whether we like it or not, people measure success either directly or indirectly in relation to the economy. People want nice houses, nice cars and want to be better than their friends or neighbours. They want a good job, and this tends to mean good wages and doing something they want to do. With national economic success, all these things can be bought. Threats to democratic structures therefore can therefore be staved off with economic success, and therefore it is in the national interest to have funds to do this.

What’s more, by having lots of flexibility, it makes it easier to achieve things the individual politician finds to be in the national interest. Let’s say that a politician is concerned about the issue of socio-economic inequality. When funds are tight, it is hard to do anything. When the economy is doing well, excess funds can be siphoned off to promote the achievement of this long-term goal. For example, investing heavily in infrastructure can promote long term economic growth. However, often politicians focus on more short-term benefits like increasing benefits or reducing taxes. The politician is able to achieve long-term aims it through the back door when there is very high economic growth. It is therefore imperative to achieve economic growth.

The second reason why this is a sensible idea is that a good economy can give maximum power to you as an international unit. This is important, as both threats and goals can come from abroad as well. For example, the military, like many other things that politicians want to invest in, can be expensive. Like many other things that act in the national interest, there is no clear direct benefit from having a significant military. Its benefits are more subtle and long term, and cannot easily be broken down to be understood by the population. The fact that people have in their imagination the notion of the army only being useful during war does not help. In fact, it makes it very easy to dismiss it as a useless organisation, outdated in a world where war is rare. The military often has vital strategic importance. For one, it is important because the whole globe sees it as important. This may seem like a contradiction in terms, but in reality it is not. Leaders across the globe factor in the military into their decision-making, and therefore having a bigger one makes you a bigger player. What’s more, there are other important things that the military does. It makes you a player in parts of the world you may not have been able to influence – for example, the US’ extraordinary power in Asia is partly as a result of its military presence. It also allows a nation to defend important shipping routes, important for the success of the economy. This is just some of the many examples, but its influence is subtle, and does greatly increase world power. In this way, power can be gained through investing in things like the military. This investment can increase international power and head off threats. In a world where international threats are becoming increasingly common, it is important to have the capacity to protect yourself as a nation. Investing in things that prevent threats from becoming existential are key here. For example, pandemic preparedness, tied international aid and cyber defence systems seem like good things to put considerable amounts into.

In this way, the ‘national interest’ tends to be, in the current global climate, increasing economic growth and protection from external threats. Both increase our flexibility as a nation. This, as with most things in politics, is again a balance. To achieve the ‘national interest’, there are two things that need to be balanced against one another. The first is a ‘universal’ national interest. This is always the ‘national interest’, it is universal, and is recognised by parties as existing no matter who is in power. The other is a ‘particular’ national interest. This is something different. This is that thing I mentioned nearer the start of the article – something that provides you with motivation as a politician. This depends on the particular priorities of the party or politician that happens to be in government. If the party thinks that social conservativism is the way forward, that is what they define to be the national interest. If it believes the opposite, then that’s what it defines to be its ‘particular’ national interest. What makes it a ‘national interest’ is that the politician decides that it is the right thing to do from their privileged position – an aerial, information-heavy view of politics from the top.

Conclusion

The politician’s job is to increase our welfare. To increase our welfare politicians often have to do things that seem morally suspect. This looks bad, but you shouldn’t be deceived. Sometimes it is for society’s good, even if we don’t think about it in detail. Obviously, there are things that politicians should not be doing, and you should hold them to account when they do these things. However, we should be cautious when holding the government to account. Doing it too often can have some relatively significant disadvantages for us as a national community. If the Westminster bubble is filled with good politicians, it makes sense to sometimes try to ease the public pressure on important strategic decisions. These need to often be made above the fray, and there needs to be a degree of trust in politicians doing the right thing.

Often this may mean that politicians feel slightly inhuman or disingenuous. They sometimes seem to be pushing an agenda that is contrary to what they want us to think. This should not be seen as necessarily wrong, but rather just part of how, sometimes, things have to work for the best end-result. The politician will not share everything that they want to do with you, a soundbite or headline cannot always get to the complexity of what the politician intends to do. Nor should they necessarily try. The politician should not try to remake human nature, rather try to do the best given the circumstances world we live in.

Yours,

WFF

Bibliography:

Roger Scruton, Where We Are: The State of Britain Now

https://www.brown.edu/Research/Understanding_the_Iran_Contra_Affair/n-contrasus.php

David Runciman, Political Hypocrisy, The Mask of Power, From Hobbes to Orwell and Beyond