All politicians have their individual quirks, personalities, viewpoints, and priorities. Within that, we can sort politicians into roughly three categories.
The first category, the pragmatists, approach politics as an art of problem solving and consensus building, aiming to accomplish effective governance. Pragmatists tend to focus their efforts on issues and in directions where an opportunity to build a working coalition exists. Pragmatic politics involves listening and adjusting positions; pragmatists change based not only on practical politics, but also in response to information and to logical arguments. Abraham Lincoln was, famously, a
pragmatist in his approach to ending American slavery.
The second type of politician, the romantics, start with a specific goal or outlook, one they resist compromising. Romantic political orientation has its value where compromise is either ineffective or morally intolerable. Winston Churchill was largely romantic in his implacable opposition to Nazi Germany. However, in most cases a romantic approach to politics ends with fireworks such as those produced by romantic conservatives in the American Congress, have who achieved periodic shutdowns of the American government but little in the way of legislation.
The final type, the incendiary, is more common in social movements than in politics, but incendiary politicians do appear from time to time. Incendiary politicians are distinguished from romantics by their willingness to go outside the formal and informal limits of political discourse to achieve their goals. Andrew Jackson was an incendiary politician, most notably when he defied the US Supreme Court ruling on Indigenous rights to commit one of the worst acts of ethnic cleansing in American history. Donald Trump is, of course, cut from similar cloth.
All of which makes Rich Lowry's recent commentary in the New York Times downright interesting.
.jpg "USCapitol, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons")
