Politicians paid for results, not speeches

In announcing her retirement Tuesday -- a retirement that may provide an opening for Nevada's own Harry Reid to retain his title as majority leader in the U.S. Senate--Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe said something interesting.

"As I have long said, what motivates me is producing results for those who have entrusted me to be their voice and their champion," Snowe said.

That's results, mind you, not debate, standoffs, speeches or stands on principle. There's a huge difference.

Snowe voiced what many have felt in recent years, as politics has become more partisan, more ideological and less open to compromise of any kind. "I do find it frustrating, however, that an atmosphere of polarization and 'my way or the highway' ideologies has become pervasive in campaigns and in our governing institutions," she said.

"Unfortunately, I do not realistically expect the partisanship of recent years in the Senate to change over the short term. ... As I enter a new chapter, I see a vital need for the political center in order for our democracy to flourish and to find solutions that unite rather than divide us."

Snowe isn't the only one: The late Bill Raggio, who died last week and was eulogized in newspaper columns this weekend, felt the same way. He was praised for his ability to craft deals that resulted in results, even in the face of ideological opposition.

In an Associated Press story that ran in the Review-Journal in January 2011, Raggio warned the Republican Party would have to revamp its ideology lest it lose general elections going forward. He praised the ability to compromise as an important skill, not a character flaw.

"I come from the old school where you put the election behind you, and everyone works together and compromise is not a dirty word," Raggio said.

Old school, indeed.

Perhaps the real dirty word should be ideology, as defined by former President Bill Clinton in a famous 2006 speech at Georgetown University. "There is a big difference between a philosophy and an ideology," Clinton said.

"If you have a philosophy, it generally pushes you in a certain direction or another. But like all philosophers you want to engage in discussion or argument. You're open to evidence, to new learning, and you're certainly open to debate the practical applications of your philosophy. Therefore, you might wind up making a principled agreement with someone of a different philosophy.

"The problem with ideology is, if you've got an ideology, you've already got your mind made up, you know all the answers," he continued. "And that makes evidence irrelevant and argument a waste of time. So you tend to govern by assertion and attack. The problem with that is that is discourages thinking and gives you bad results."

There's that word again -- results. What results have we seen recently in sticking to an unbending, rigorous ideology? Budget standoffs. Constitutional crisis. Government paralyzed to the point of inaction, incapable of doing anything for anybody. And ultimately, some kind of timely compromise that leaves its authors breathing a sigh of relief, and its detractors calling out leadership as squishes.

And this isn't just the Tea Party; the left does precisely the same thing. And I myself have given in to this temptation more than once.

But the purpose of government is not to throw tantrums or make speeches, it's to serve the people in the ways outlined in the Constitution.

Philosophy brings us to the table to figure out the best way to do that; ideology drives us away. We need to remember that if our democracy -- if our country -- is ever going to produce results.

Steve Sebelius is a Review-Journal political columnist and author of the blog SlashPolitics.com. Follow him on Twitter (@SteveSebelius) or reach him at 387-5276 or SSebelius@reviewjournal.com.