R: Politics is the Art of the Possible

Nineteenth century German statesman Otto von Bismarck once described politics as the “art of the possible.” The first thought one might have when looking at many of our Party's resolutions is, “Well, it depends.” While this week’s resolution is no exception, our debate will focus on the spirit of our approach to politics. For decades, it seemed as though American politics was static, or worse yet, like we were moving further along the temporal scale of liberalism. After ​​Roe v. Wade was overturned on June 24, 2022, American politics was broken out of its stasis. While many view Dobbs as unique and argue that further conservative victories are highly unlikely, it is clear that the range of political possibility has widened. Now that politics has been cracked open, whether or not it is the art of the possible is a supremely timely question. Should we, as conservatives, approach politics as pragmatists or idealists?

My Federalist kin, the Kingdom is not of this world. In The Brothers Karamazov, Dostoyevsky describes socialism and atheism as, “the question of the tower of Babel built without God, not to mount to heaven from earth but to set up heaven on earth.” Conservatives are not utopians. Accordingly, those in the affirmative may find themselves supporting a pragmatic approach to politics. Though the Founding Fathers are mythologized in the modern day, the documents and government they produced are the result of compromise. It would have been impossible to build what they did had they held fast to lofty ideals and been unwilling to compromise. Our nation has endured because our system of government acknowledges the messiness of life, the reality of power, and the dark impulses of human nature. America has thrived because her government seeks to prevent tyranny instead of encouraging her citizens to build the tower of Babel. Conservatism is not an ideology: It is informed by a sobriety that the idealists might call pessimism.

But what Dostoyevsky actually warns us about is ideology, not idealism. In this debate, it may be helpful for us to consider ideology as the corruption of philosophy or perhaps as the corruption of religion. If this is so, conservatives guided by philosophy or religious faith are not ideologues, they are idealists.

There are a few ways to view the pro-life movement's victory in Dobbs: One is as a hard-fought battle waged by shrewd organizers chipping away at the culture of death piece by piece. Another is as a hard-fought battle waged by starry-eyed, delusional pro-lifers who refused to believe that murder was a kind of freedom and were willing to support the turning of the tide of “progress.” It may be the case that some practicality is needed when executing the means of any act, but what good are means without a noble end? Those in the negative may find themselves arguing that it does not matter how effective you are at “getting things done” if, in doing so, your pragmatism has tempered your longing for what is good, true, and beautiful. Even if we inevitably fall short, we must set our sights high. A politics that affirms the dignity of all men is something that most or all of us desire, but that goal, too, may be chided by the pragmatists as a pipe dream. Perhaps the only ends worth pursuing are the unrealistic ones?

Some see pragmatism as cynical and empty while others see it as realistic and smart. If we reject politics as the art of the possible, are we simply being naive? What if the only way to advance the good is through some form of idealism? What is idealism? And pragmatism? Do they need each other? What are the dangers of each? Which should be the guiding star of our politics?