Political folly

William H. Seward was one of the most hated politicians of his day.

The British feared he was a threat to their North American interests, and Americans saw his actions as reckless and unnecessary.

Seward’s crime: He proposed that the United States purchase Alaska for a mere two cents per acre.

On March 30, 1867, Seward signed the treaty with Russia to acquire the Alaskan territory, which increased the size of the United States by 20 percent.

The papers immediately slashed the nascent Alaskan Purchase, dubbing it “Seward’s Folly,” and the unpopular treaty narrowly escaped being killed by Congress – passing in the Senate by the margin of a single vote.

Yet today, on the anniversary of Seward’s great “folly,” few would argue with his decision. In 1898 gold was found in the Alaskan territory, and since then – whether for its natural resources or beautiful landscapes – Americans have generally found Alaska to be a worthwhile addition to the Union.

So it often goes with history: One generation’s folly is the next generation’s treasure. In a time when our president makes the rounds on the late night talk show circle and has 64,000 people tuning into his Internet town hall meeting, unpopularity the likes of Seward’s is far from anyone in the Obama administration’s mind.

Undoubtedly, political capital is important for getting things done.

The president who remains in the good graces of the public gets his agenda through Congress, while the senator who compromises in order to move legislation forward is often not re-elected by his or her constituents.

As Willy Loman from “Death of a Salesman” said, “Be liked and you will never want.” Perhaps the follow-up to Willy’s question is: Be liked by whom? The public or posterity?

Popular opinion is a fickle thing. Some like President Barack Obama have it; others like the GOP do not.

Which explains why Obama, who is championing one of the most controversial policy packages in recent memory, can make it through a Special Olympics joke on “The Tonight Show” virtually unscathed, while the GOP scrambles to find support for its often valid criticisms of the bailout plan. 

Having the support of the public is a great thing, but as Seward reminds us, it is not the only thing.

Ultimately, formulating sound policy matters more than staying in the good graces of the masses.

Although popularity and the ability to make policies are certainly interrelated, our politicians must be careful not to hesitate to make unpopular – but ultimately necessary – policies out of fear of taking a political hit.

Even many of us who believe in Obama find ourselves hoping he will take more cues from economists like Paul Krugman and less from “Harriet in Georgia,” and that he will stop telling us what we want to hear and start making difficult decisions.

History will be the ultimate arbiter of Obama as it has been of Seward. Someday historians might write, perhaps ironically, of “Obama’s Folly”: that in a time of economic peril, he put too much stock in popular opinion.