The Politics of Ego

When we talk about politics, we usually talk about it in the abstract or as we might phrase it, politics in general.  These abstractions may be ideological claims or philosophical claims.  Sometimes we get specific about policies, laws, bills, etc.  Sometimes we speak of particular politicians, though usually those conversations revolve around ethics and/or name calling.

What we are experiencing currently is something of an inevitable train wreck of all the above with the addition of one tremendous factor in politics: ego.  Ego makes for animosity, gridlock, and the means by which everyone can foist blame, responsibility, and end up going nowhere.

For example, with the issues the US is currently having with Russia over the alleged hacking: when President Obama moved to sanction Russia it brought to the fore the quagmire that is modern political action and rhetoric.

This action was something that the Russians had been pushing for for some time.  So they could praise the move by the President as "appropriate" (Paul Ryan said that).  But with that damning faint praise came the swift retort that President Obama's actions were "overdue" and proof of the administration's weak foreign policy.  So it was the right thing, but too little too late.

The President's actions, then, were "appropriate" but "overdue."  Yet for some Republicans, the actions of the President were not "appropriate" but far too little.  Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) called on the administration for "much tougher" actions.  Here comes the problem.

President-elect Trump now has three options when he comes to office.  Keep the sanctions of President Obama, make those sanctions tougher (or offer a tougher response in general), or do the opposite and drop the sanctions which would be in keeping with the President-elect's calls for closer ties with Russia.

In sanctioning Russia, a Democrat has done what Republicans wanted, but they can't credit him for it, because they want more.  Whatever President Obama did would never be enough, even if it was exactly what the Republicans proposed.  The incoming Republican president, representative of his party, may not want to keep or toughen the sanctions.  President Obama's resistance to the sanctions initially were likely an attempt to keep out of the presidential election so as to appear neutral during the elections and avoid charges of "fixing" the election to favor Sen. Clinton.  As Clinton did not win, he could act perhaps with a little more freedom.  It could also be that President Obama did have a weak foreign policy and this was demonstrative of that fact.  Or, perhaps, President Obama did act in a fashion that the Republicans would like to set up a challenge for President-elect Trump to have to maneuver in the future.

Whatever, the end result is that no one is happy and everyone gets to blame the outgoing president while remaining unsure as to what the incoming president will do.

With so much as stake, it appears that ego may very well push both parties into a larger stalemate as the President-elect (as he seems likely to do) does his own thing without concern for party, tradition, allegiances, or the ego of others in D.C.  It will remain to be seen if the ego of the President-elect will manage to trump the collective ego of those with whom he will oppose, ignore, or support.

Until then, our politics will likely keep us all very much apart.