Limits or Emptiness? Accommodation or Principles?

 

Limits or Emptiness? Accommodation or Principles?

Peter Schultz

 

                  In my previous entry I wrote about the emptiness of politics. That seemed and seems rather radical so perhaps it is better to refer to “the limits” of politics rather than the emptiness of politics. What follows here are some meanderings on this theme.

 

                  While the emptiness of politics seems too radical, is it? Isn’t limits a “nice” way of saying empty because, ultimately, the limits point toward political failure, at least eventually? Political successes are ephemeral; so, while political successes might feel like flying, we are actually falling.

 

                  Quinn, writing about civilization, suggested there are “laws” which if followed would ensure success. But are there such “laws?” Isn’t the necessity of acceding to existing forces – which engineers know is indispensable – evidence that such “laws” are non-existent? Acceding is required because the existing forces are, in fact, “lawless.” The “law of gravity” is a metaphor that implies that gravity can be controlled, rationalized. It cannot. It must be acceded to.  

 

                  As a result of such speculations, accommodation becomes a – or even the – cardinal virtue. That is, accommodating behavior is superior to principled behavior, contrary to the prevailing conventional wisdom. The basic conflict is: accommodation v. principles. A politics of accommodation or a politics of principle. We get to choose. But, of course, we have lost sight of this basic conflict because it is now taken for granted by almost everyone that principled politics is the only appropriate kind of politics. Principled politics seems elevating, transformative even. Principled politics make us feel like we are flying. But, given the emptiness – or limits – of politics, we are actually falling.