The political battleground in the United States could be described these days as conservative vs. liberal.
Or it might be traditionalists vs. progressives. Maybe some see it as free market vs. regulation. Still, for others we're engaged in a fight of socialism vs. freedom. The debate occasionally boils down an argument over right vs. wrong.
It is easy to sit around a convenience store cup of coffee amidst a regular gathering of like-minded friends to make declarations of right and wrong. People have every right to their fervent opinions, and I appreciate people who can articulate their reasons for taking a strong stand. Politics, however, cannot forever be about drawing lines in the land and trying to perpetuate them in concrete.
What I see played out on our local, state and national stages often boils down to choices between principles and pragmatism. That hasn't always been a terrible place to be in the political spectrum, except that lately it seems a necessary ingredient to progress -- compromise -- has been viewed as weakness or capitulation.
It can be, but not necessarily so.
Fayetteville Alderman Matthew Petty thought a stand on principle would lead to victory in his effort to pass the Human Rights Campaign's ideas for how Fayetteville should govern itself. The organization found in Petty a political leader willing to sponsor an ordinance drawn up by national LGBT activists trying to wage a national battle on local battlefields. In his earliest defense of the ordinance, Petty described his support for a complex ordinance in simple terms: He's against discrimination, therefore he supported the ordinance.
Some, however, supported the principle behind the ordinance's introduction, but had serious problems with its flaws and did not back the measure. Does it mean they're less committed to fighting discrimination? Not in the least. Indeed, when a lawmaker or advocate says you "have to" support a measure if you share any particular principle, it's best to move forward with caution and resist group-think.
Republicans are going through a principle vs. pragmatism debate in its process -- if one can yet call it that -- for selecting its next standard-bearer in the campaign for president. In the last few days, Jeb Bush announced those initial steps necessary to a run for the presidency. Although he hails from what could legitimately be viewed as a GOP dynasty, his decision set in motion a conservative backlash. He's soft on some issues the hard-core conservatives like Ted Cruz or Rand Paul could capitalize on in the hard-right segment of the GOP. So Republicans may have a debate in the build-up to 2016: Nominate someone staunchly conservative who will keep the Tea Party happy or someone who clearly leans conservative but takes stances that could also draw in voters from the middle ground.
Fayetteville's Pete Heinzelmann has always struck me as a man of principle when it comes to preserving natural areas. He deserves plaudits for his role in efforts to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy lands for preservation, notably acreage atop Mount Sequoyah and Mount Kessler. Last week, he implored the Fayetteville School Board to reject a company's request for terms that would allow for leased school property for cell phone towers.
In principle, I agree with his assessment that the natural landscape is marred by cell towers. Our technological landscape, however, requires them, a pragmatic argument made by Fayetteville School Board member Steve Percival.
"Fundamentally, the discussion is not whether or not they're coming," Percival said. "It's just where are they going to be. Until we stop using our smart phones ... [they're] not going to go away."
If a cell tower might be 200 yards away on a piece of private property anyway, isn't it a practical decision for the school district to capitalize on the revenue available through such developments?
In our political debates, the problem isn't operating from a place of principle. The trouble stems from intractability, and that happens among conservatives and liberals. That's where we get political standoffs. Perhaps such standoffs achieve a form of victory in some instances, but not many.
Ron Aman, a member of the Washington County Quorum Court for a single term, became known for consistently voting against county budgets and many spending proposals. As Aman left the court last week, one fellow member praised him sticking to his principles. But such consistency, to me, simply reflects impractical abstinence.
What we need -- in Little Rock, in Washington, in city halls and county courthouses -- are principled people who can operate with pragmatism in addressing challenges that face us.
Our folks in Washington haven't been very good at showing that kind of leadership, but I continue to hope our local institutions can continue their traditions of pragmatism that help our state and communities move forward.
And one last thought: Merry Christmas.
GREG HARTON IS OPINION PAGE EDITOR FOR NWA MEDIA.
Commentary on 12/22/2014