Ten to fifteen years ago, I had a very different attitude toward politics. I was an all-or-nothing, winner-take-all partisan. I saw the political process as a zero sum game. That standard set me up for a lot of disappointment – because that’s just simply not the reality of our system.
But for so many, that mentality still guides how they interact with our public debates. It’s no wonder to me, then, why the tribalism of the last several years seems so much more palpable. If your tribe isn’t in power at a given level, you must be losing, right?
As I grew up in the politics of central Ohio, I found my own tribalism being challenged. As I experienced more of the art of governance versus the brawling nature of politics, I came to appreciate the difference of the two. I also came to realize from my own experience that maintaining your own peace in this work requires a shift in how we define success.
If you’re already suffering a bit of burnout over politics, and are dreading the prospect of the next Presidential election cycle, this shift could be especially important. Why? Because no matter what happens on the battlegrounds of politics, successful advocates have to bring their causes forward in the reality of governance.
Governance is ugly. It’s trench work. Governance is where the authority gained in elections is balanced by the challenge of managing complex systems. That’s a different type of conflict, and it can be harder to get people revved up to participate. Those who can keep showing up through the frustrations of that slog can chip away at their agenda.
But that starts by acknowledging the reality of the world around us and accepting that change comes in stages.
Very rarely is the slog and conflict of governance going to afford opportunities for sweeping changes. That’s not how our American system is designed. And that design has afforded us incredible stability in the face of partisan conflict.
But for advocates, that reality also challenges us to check our own expectations in the system. We can’t expect to get everything we want. We have to “right-size” our expectations to fit the reality around us. Not all of our ideas fit the current environment. Not all of our agenda will align with those in positions of influence. Because of that, we have to see “winning” in different lights.
Winning can’t always be getting a bill signed – we won’t always get a vote on our issues, let alone have the votes when we get the rare opportunity.
Winning can’t always be getting the exact appropriation we’re seeking in a budget – but are we showing incremental growth?
Hell, winning can’t always be having our issue top of mind for those in leadership positions – but it can be creating engagement opportunities to reconnect with those leaders.
This isn’t defeatism. Right-sizing your definition of winning in politics is how you commit to a longer fight. It’s how you stay above the petty frustrations of partisanship and keep moving forward on your agenda regardless of who’s in power. It’s accepting the fact you’re in a marathon not a sprint, and that you may need a little in the tank to get all the way across the finish line – a finish line that can move with every election.
If you’re serious about your causes, you have to right-size your wins and how you define success. Making that mental switch is a challenging and necessary prospect if you want to find your way to accomplishing meaningful change.
Part of the Possible 