"Where there's a will, there's a way," we say, as a shorthand way to suggest that no goal or accomplishment is out of reach if we have enough desire and commitment to achieve it.
I guess maybe alchemists just haven't been dedicated or persistent enough? But generally, we might accept the old adage as true in many situations, especially when it isn't the laws of nature, but the opinions of human beings, that we're seeking to alter.
In politics, in our two-party system, the "will" part is complicated by the need for two wills not only to exist, but to merge into one. Too often, we find politicians concerning themselves with the way, and suffering a deficiency of will, even when they may agree about the desirability of the goal. It's what makes politics slow and uncertain:
- Politically motivated redistricting will continue until both parties see potential benefit to themselves in making the process fair, regular, unbiased, and transparent.
- Efforts to jigger the rules for elections (voter access, registration procedures, allocation of electoral votes) will cease only when each party sees a way to gain from the change (or perhaps to limit potential advantages for the opposing party).
- Senators won't give up abusing procedural rules like the filibuster until neither side can envision itself not needing to employ the tactic to block its opponent.
- Campaign finance rules won't really be reformed, in the sense that most citizens would think desirable, until neither party believes it can obtain a slight edge from continuing to create and exploit loopholes. And incidentally, t's neither fair nor sensible when opinionists berate the Obama team for creating the 501(c)(4) "Organizing for Action," by which they're only moving down the path already so well-trodden by his opponents.
When will all the ideal conditions be reached for progress on such issues? The pessimist in me says "probably never." Unlike social issues that directly affect the electorate (e.g., immigration reform, where some small signs of the two parties' combined "will" are beginning to show), these are dreary procedural matters that voters just don't get very excited about. Those who do care deeply about them are politicians, and politicians mostly don't want such problems fixed. (After all, as Senate Majority leader Harry Reid recently intimated in discussing reform of the filibuster, the Republican minority's use of that procedure might be frustrating, yet he relishes the time when the shoe is on the other foot and Democrats may be able to use it the same way.)
The optimist in me says, only when politicians see that voters do care and are prepared to factor their dissatisfaction into the ballots - but even then, only slowly and incrementally. Not very optimistic, but there it is.
Comments