Current American political rhetoric often distinguishes between decisions made for politics and decisions made for the sake of good policy, or for government. This distinction is often made in order to accuse an adversary of acting in bad faith, and to deride the unwelcome politics in government. Blaming politics and the complex system of self-interest that governs electoral motivations is imprecise, and holds us back from other necessary discourse.

Congressional elections are the mechanisms of public accountability built into the legislative branch. Electoral self-preservation is a fundamental motivating factor in modern democracy. We shouldn’t be surprised at this, or disgusted.

Look at how the business world is organized. Capitalism is based on the accumulation of capital, where self-interest is expressed as reinvestment of financial surplus, resulting in expansion and further capital.

Trials are similarly organized: the defense and the prosecution both have a responsibility to try to make a case, in a kind of predefined inauthentic role. Of course a defense lawyer focuses on exculpatory evidence. That’s their job.

Now, to argue that politicians’ motives are inherently pure would be silly. I think we just have to get past the barrier of blaming politics to get to a discourse with more substance. I’m hoping that the Internet, and distributed journalism, and a more educated and engaged citizenry, will help us to get to that point. We should be talking about a lot more, political segments on the news often end with the exchanged accusations, rather than starting with them. There just isn’t space to delve into the substance, it’s just left as “oh, there go the politicians again,” or “business as usual.”

That’s the point where the discussion should begin, rather than end. When someone is accused of simply “towing the party line”, by what standard do we judge their loyalty? Party influence and cohesion is an important aspect of congressional motivations. Perhaps if we discussed the appropriateness of party loyalty (and the leadership positions can lead to) outside the context of heated debates and accusations, we would have clear societal expectations beyond what is expected from a caucus or conference, or what is stipulated by the law. When does coordinated messaging cross the line from well-organized to inauthentic? To what degree is congressional procedure an appropriate method for manipulating legislative results? Are clear standards of appropriate chamber action possible, or are we doomed to hear constant accusations of conniving and precedent-breaking?

I think those questions deserve clear answers. When a set of expectations develops around these questions, petty accusations won’t work against substance.