Political principles are no less valid if imperfectly applied | Opinion

A colleague once mused, “Sometimes you have to rise above principle.” That sounded ridiculous. What’s more important than principle in guiding human activity? Upon reflection, however, this makes sense. Some principles are fundamental ends in themselves. Others are tactical and can be compromised in favor of more valuable outcomes. Still others don’t withstand scrutiny.

Principles’ capacity to inspire ethical, predictable behavior is uniquely human. And their ability to prevent the practical and the achievable in search of the perfect and the unachievable is, regrettably, also uniquely human. So how can we maintain the flexibility to work with others without becoming unmoored and standing for nothing?

Living by principle is a wonderful thing, most of the time. Principles are related to their cousins ‒ ethics ‒ in providing guard guideposts for decisions and then action. If we end up in a Cormac McCarthy endtime from “The Road,” we may have to rethink things. Until then, ethics and principles beyond mere survival are essential.

Ethics apply to our interactions with others. Virtually all great religions share a version of the Christian golden rule: “In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you.” There may be questionable prescriptions in Leviticus, but not around “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” Such guidance has been traced back to 500 B.C.

Kant's 'categorical imperative'

So how do personal ethics expand to politics? Immanuel Kant’s “categorical imperative,” penned in 1787, is a good place to start. It’s a universal principle framed around a simple question: Would we want everyone to do the same thing in the same circumstances? If so, according to Kant’s universality principle, then the action is appropriate.

The universality principle applies a consistent guide to all actions. Consistency is one thing. The values motivating the decision are another. Kant addressed this through his principle of humanity: treat others not as means to some personally desirable ends, but as ends in themselves. Don’t objectify people. Don’t use them. This, combined with the golden rule, presents a great standard to guide everyday actions

What about politics and governing? Extend both principles to society in general, and we have Kant’s “Kingdom of Ends,” a blueprint for a broader political community. In fact, it’s his ideal political community.

The danger of 'affective partisanship'

We’re headed in a different direction. Pragmatism and good sense are increasingly being shoved aside by strict adherence to lesser political principles. The least of these is driven by the emerging notion of “affective partisanship.” The principle, such as it is: “Oppose all initiatives of the other party. They’re evil and must be driven from office.”

Other principles have intrinsic value to their adherents but can be compromised in moderation for practical reasons. We can slow down electrification of the auto industry. We can raise taxes and/or cut spending. We can reform immigration policy.

Danielle Allen, professor of Philosophy, Ethics, and Public Policy at Harvard and member of the Board of Fellows of the University of Tennessee’s Institute for American Civics, delivered this year’s Constitution Day address in Knoxville.

She pointed out that the Declaration of Independence is a masterful set of principles. But questions inevitably arise around such a consequential document whose fundamental principles are that all are created equal, that “governments derive their power from the consent of the governed” and that governments must respect liberty.

What of the imperfect application of those principles? Equality and thus liberty were not universally applied until after the Civil War, and not with good faith until after Brown v. Board of Education and the Civil and Voting Rights Acts. Nonetheless, they hold up very well when subjected to Kant’s notions of universality and humanity. Their value isn’t diminished by the initial failure to apply to all. To the contrary, without them, the relentless journey to Kant's just "Kingdom of Ends" wouldn’t be possible.

Consistency in support of key principles is essential. But, to borrow from Emerson, “foolish consistency is still the hobgoblin of little minds.” Repeat, with the emphasis on “foolish. “

William Lyons is Professor Emeritus of Political Science and Interim Associate Director of The Institute of American Civics at the Howard Baker School of Public Policy and Public Affairs at the University of Tennessee. He also served as Chief Policy Officer for Knoxville Mayors Bill Haslam, Daniel Brown and Madeline Rogero. The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Institute of American Civics or the University of Tennessee.

This article originally appeared on Knoxville News Sentinel: Opinion: Political principles are no less valid if imperfectly applied