ShareThis Page
Politics in our lives |
Featured Commentary

Politics in our lives

| Friday, November 1, 2013 8:57 p.m

“What matters?” It’s a question columnist Charles Krauthammer asks in the first sentence of his new book, titled “Things That Matter: Three Decades of Passions, Pastimes and Politics.” He explains how the working title for the book had originally been “There’s More to Life than Politics” and was going to include just about everything but politics. Naturally, though, a man who “left a life in medicine for a life in journalism devoted mostly to politics” couldn’t disengage.

As Krauthammer points out, there is actually no escaping politics. “Politics, the crooked timber of our communal lives, dominates everything,” he writes, “because, in the end, everything … lives or dies by politics. You can have the most advanced and efflorescent of cultures. Get your politics wrong, however, and everything stands to be swept away. This is not ancient history. This is Germany 1933.”

When we think that we are above politics, that we don’t need to get our hands dirty paying attention to who it is we are electing, or to policy and pending decisions, we are shirking a responsibility. Disengagement is dangerous; engagement is our civic duty.

Cynicism about politics can be seductive, as it is conflict and scandal the media thrives on; it’s often the worst of it that we focus on. But politics are necessary. “Politics is,” Krauthammer writes, “the moat, the walls, beyond which lie the barbarians. Fail to keep them at bay, and everything burns.

“First and above all else,” Krauthammer writes, “you must secure life, liberty and the right to pursue your own happiness.” The “glories yielded by … successful politics lie outside itself. Its deepest purpose is to create the conditions for the cultivation of the finer things, beginning with philosophy and science, and ascending to the ever more delicate and refined arts.”

The alternatives, he says, are “deranged Stalinist politics” in North Korea, creating “a land of stunning desolation and ugliness, both spiritual and material.” Or “Taliban Afghanistan, which, just months before 9/11, marched its cadres into the Bamiyan Valley and with tanks, artillery and dynamite destroyed its magnificent cliff-carved 1,700-year-old Buddhas lest they — like kite flying and music and other things lovely — disturb the scorched-earth purity of their nihilism.”

We have a choice. Do we seek and encourage the good — in our lives and, yes, in our politics? These things — our lives, our ethics, the quality of our enterprises, our dedication to stewardship of the gifts we have been given and men have died to protect — are intimately related. We’re free to disengage, but it’s really not a moral option.

“Campaigns and elections … personalities and peccadilloes (are) things that come and go,” Krauthammer writes. “Partisan contention that characterizes the daily life of a democracy — the tentative, incremental, ever-improvised” are political realities. But what are they informed by? What are we arguing about? What are we fighting for? What are we working toward? Who are we? Who do we live for? These are things that matter. Politics without conscience and conscious abandonment of politics are recipes for civilizational disaster.

Politics aren’t everything, but they are inescapable. Wise engagement makes all the difference. Men of faithful dedication, living lives of discernment, light the path in communities and in the halls of power. We know the alternatives, and that’s not a choice we can live with.

Kathryn Lopez is the editor-at-large of National Review Online (

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.