I write tonight not to condemn Brett Kavanaugh. That has been done to death, as have supportive statements. That part is over; Brett Kananaugh is now a Supreme Court Justice and will probably be one the rest of my life.
My comment today is about the failure of the process of deciding who gets confirmed to the Supreme Court and how. And it is about fairness. And partisanship.
Partly, it is about how politics have become more partisan over the past decades. It has happened before, of course. Early in US history, political arguments were intensely personal and slanderous (worse than today) where political parties owned newspapers and the editorials and editorial cartoons were uncontrolled and facts were not even thought relevant.
A political cartoon today might exaggerate a person's appearance (Obama's long face, Trump's hair), but older ones had them actually portrayed as animals. And in 1852 Representative Preston Brooks (D-SC) used a walking cane to attack Senator Charles Sumner (R-MA), nearly killing him while others looked on. Things got calmer later.
But we are returning to irrational anger. It is a different kind of anger. Today the political parties attack the reputation, honesty, and factual memory of others at any opportunity. They attack when they don't even seem to believe what they say themselves. When presented with facts disproving their arguments, they say "Oh well, that is just politics".
No, it isn't! Politics is "the art of the possible". It is the skill of reaching an agreement with someone you don't completely agree with to get something you both think more important than what you each give. It is the idea that people you disagree with have honorable things that matter to them, just as you have things you consider honorable yourself.
It can be theoretical trades. One Senator wants higher taxes on imported goods to support a national manufacturing base and another Senator wants higher minimum wages so that struggling workers can afford their rent and decent food.
Or it can be more practical. One House Member sees a need in his/her District for a bridge to connect manufacturing to highways and another sees a need for road improvements between 2 large cities.
Or both sides want to change some social laws and agree to meet in the middle for things to be changed in the future as society changes.
But that isn't what is happening today. Today, what happens is that both sides say they want 100% and the other side gets 0% and they fight to the death about it as if the slightest degree of negotiation is fatal.
Because it is. The US has not been so polarized since just before the Civil War. When I was young, there were Liberal Republicans and Conservative Repulicans. There were Liberal Democrats and Conservative Democrats. Each Party had to first find some degree of agreement within themselves before they could nominate some Presidential candidate.
The result was that the candidates were either close to "centrist" or had to be close. US politics, as a Social Democracy worked well that way.
Nixon ruined that by enticing all the conservative democrats his way, Goldwater exemplified that, and the Democrats responded by slowing absorbing the Progressive Republicans (like me).
And here we are now. Civil Wars occur when a people are geographically split, ideologically split, religiously split, or politically split. We are reaching all 4 of those.
What to do? Get our elected leaders back toward the center. Choose centrists in every election. Or at least the least extreme candidate. Politicians don't elect themselves, it takes we voters to put them in office.
In Maryland, Governor Larry Hogan is a Republican. I normally vote Democrat by default because the Republican candidates seem too extreme usually. I disagree with some things he has done. But he is closer to the center than his Democratic opponent.
I will put my vote toward the more centrist candidate. I have to start somewhere. I'm not choosing a Party, I'm choosing a candidate.
Look at your own State's candidates. Choose center. Put people in office who can actually work together. Because those are the leaders of our future. That House Member you elect next month may be the President in 30 years,
1 comment:
Mark - I spent the month of September in USA and Canada, so got to read a lot of newspaper reports about Kavanaugh. I find it disappointing that the position of High Court judge is perceived to be so political in the first instance. That said, it was hard to know how to feel about the appointment in the light of claims against him.
In the middle of this period, I was in a conversation with a 60-year-old man who was telling me the story about a small scar on one of his fingers. When he was in grade 6, he wanted to kiss a girl in his class, so he made a grab for her. She wasn't keen, so she stabbed at him with the sharp pencil that she was holding and cut his finger open. Hmmmm. He wasn't embarrassed at all about telling the story - it was just something that had happened many many years ago. But I felt awkward because here he was telling me that as an 11-year-old boy, he had thought that if he wanted to kiss a girl, it was perfectly acceptable to use physical force to do so. I silently cheered her quick thinking and gumption in defending herself.
Yes, times change and yes, it may seem extremist all these years later, looking through the lens of the #MeToo era, to perceive his actions as sexual violence, but ... attitudes develop early. If this chap had been nominated for the High Court, and the little girl had come forward 49 years later to say that he wasn't suitable because he was a violent bully who'd attempted to sexually assault her as an 11 year old, I would be able to see her point, but I'd also be prepared to say that he'd grown up since then, had a lifetime of experience and was, in many ways, a different person.
Not sure how I feel about Kavanaugh given that he was somewhat older, the accusations more serious, and he has chosen to deny them.
Megan
Sydney, Australia
Post a Comment