Story Category: Politics »

I had a life-altering event this week that to anyone else may be the epitome of insignificance. To me, though, it made all the difference and I hope the message can be of influence.  A woman and leader whom I admire very much when asked to chime in on a hot political issue last week simply said, she did not want to contribute to the speech that simply throws out empty words and shuts down real communication and compromise.

Did she mean me? Do I do that in my articles? I shrugged it off but before long those words were back. She was right, especially about compromise.  It’s a word that has not been coming up often in modern politics but that used to make the whole free world work. I reflected on what I had been writing.  I have always thought of writing a political column as a responsibility.  An article should be a venue through which a writer can interject facts for families who don’t have time during the week to scour through documents and periodicals to get the real low down on politics. 

The writer’s role in recent decades has become more and more a tool for the partisan rhetorician, who in their work lays out one party line or the other allowing the owner of the venue to reap the benefit from the praised subject of the article. This is not new however. Think of James Callendar who it was speculated was Thomas Jefferson’s personal newsman during his race against John Adams. When Jefferson won he released Callendar, whom had been arrested under the Alien and Sedition Act for writing against the state.  When Jefferson would not hook Callendar up with a sweet presidential appointment Callendar turned on Jefferson and the world at large came to know, “Monticellan Sal.”

I am often frustrated when my words, which I am careful to craft, are taken out of context or a reader fixates on one sentence to form a conclusion that is flat out wrong.  John Adams, while serving as an attorney in Boston defended the British Officers charged in the murders of Patrick Carr, Crispus Attucks, and several others during what the public called the Boston Massacre. 

During the trial, fragments of the Sons of Liberty tried to use the negative public perception against the British to influence the outcome of the case with whooping, hollering, threats, and coercion. In light of the lack of civility was heard by Adams, “Facts are Stubborn Things.” I am sure that every writer goes through a phase where his or her voice changes because they begin reading and putting stock in the comments and exchanges taking place about their articles.  We cannot help it.  As human beings we want to be accepted and liked.  Maybe if I censor my criticism of Republicans people will know that I am moderate.  Perhaps if I criticize Democrats, people will know I am not a blind party man. 

Does every good writer come out on the other end though and reflect on what makes them take up a pen each week? For me it is an unyielding love of Country and an insatiable frustration as to the state of current affairs.  Our political system is inoperable and it is leading to a frozen economy, senseless policy and lack of policy, and a lack of civil public discourse always before essential to the progress of our Country.  There are hardly ever discussions about ideas that would fix our problems.  There is a large body of daily work about who is doing what wrong and how this party or that party is destroying everything. There is nothing more frustrating than being shut done with empty and false rhetoric. 

The Presidential campaign gives us the most glowing example of this.  President Obama is not very popular right now even though he is pursuing many initiatives because not everyone in the Country feels like his way is the right way.  Mitt Romney so far has run against President Obama and not on his own vision.  There are no substantial ideas on how to fix things from his campaign. After talking with a close friends and Romney supporter last week it became clear that while yes, Romney has failed to outline a policy direction and ease the fears of Americans about the future, he is daily waving the banner that Obama is destroying the Country and that if we vote for him he will fix it.  We need more than this.  It won’t be enough for him to get elected and roll back years of developments. I would like to know what Mr. Romney believes. What ideas does he have for jumpstarting the economy and paying off our debt?  Will he cut government to avoid running deficits? The fact remains that we just don’t know.

Perhaps it is time for our dialogue to shift.  Instead of negativity and bashing the political parties for their failures perhaps the American people could influence development with a few mandates of our own? We control who goes to Congress and the White House. The two parties are thriving by bringing us to the colonnade deck on the Titanic and asking us to rearrange the chairs if we want a seat at the discussion. We are then arguing inside their frameworks instead of the important ones that we should be.

There is a precedent for success in policy during partisan times.  In his new volume, Robert Caro’s, “The Passage of Power,” discusses Lyndon Johnson’s presidency when he takes over for President Kennedy within hours of his assassination.  As those fateful weeks progressed, President Johnson learned of two major pieces of legislation frozen in committee -- a tax cut and a civil rights bill.  The first thing President Johnson did was find out what those who could make the bills move wanted.  Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee Harry Byrd, a staunch fiscal conservative wanted the President’s budget to come in under $100 billion.  With new spending it was at the time slated for over $1.2 billion. Next, President Johnson sought council from those on his staff working on the bills to find out where they were and what had been done. The staff included Kennedy’s men who had stayed on in the new administration. 

As the meetings progressed staff were trying to sell President Johnson on every which way he could get around Byrd’s request. Johnson said No! He knew the only way to “get around it,” was not to get around it but to turn in the budget under $100 billion like Byrd asked.  Further, “no tricks,” he said. He was going to legitimately get the budget under the mark, no coy tricks and accounting loop holes.  They were going to do it legitimately.  The first thing President Johnson cared about was what those who would work with him on the bill wanted. He knew Byrd actually cared about the budget and cutting government. By working with Byrd this way, it made it difficult for him to hold up the bill.  Here was a Republican and a Democrat working together. Here was a President saying “no” and calling the head of the post office and demanding that he cut the money earmarked for 5,000 new post office employees. He also got his Department of Agriculture on board with cuts during a time when farming was suffering due to droughts.

In all honesty anyone thinking about Lyndon Johnson would probably not label him the mark of civility. However, civility is not just words and tone.  It also has to do with two party’s willingness to listen to each other and actually think about what others might want in order to come to a conclusion on a bill or initiative. It means Johnson did not discredit Harry Byrd’s Republican philosophy. He took it seriously and assumed that Senator Byrd, like him, was simply representing his constituents. Next he assumed that Senator Byrd loves his Country and wanted to do what was best for her. Lastly, he accepted the fact that his bill was not going anywhere unless he, Johnson, cut the budget. 

In this way of thinking Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell would need to share dialogue.  Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner would exchange ideas and Steny Hoyer and Eric Cantor would all need to lead by example to get everyone from both parties into the frame of mind of seeking out the needs of their would-be political opponents and finding common ground.  Maybe they do this already and it’s just the public façade that leads us to believe there is gridlock. There is something in the water nowadays though. Every former legislator I talk to says times have changed. “We might get fighting on the floor and each man might get hot, but at the end of the day we might go and have a drink together.”

This past week, State Delegate Mark Fischer went on public record associating President Obama and Karl Marx. In response, the Democratic Party in Calvert County, who of late is fighting with vigor and a new spirit and winning the social media fight in Calvert County, called on congressional candidate and Delegate Anthony “Tony” O’Donnell to either renounce or stand beside the statements of Delegate Mark Fisher.  This is just another example of Republican candidates running against Democratic leaders instead of running based on their own vision for the Country.

I have often written on the growing lack of civility in public discourse.  Not only does it seem to be getting worse, criticism of one’s opponents is rewarded.  It is no secret that President Obama is currently unpopular for policies that many call “socialist.” President Obama truly believes in using government resources to improve the lives of the jobless, disabled, hungry, minority, etc.  He does believe government is the answer.  This infuriates conservatives, and, Republicans and Democrats alike. Whether for or against Obama, or Romney, or the local candidate for public office people often just want to be heard.  Citizens want to know that their concerns are being addressed and that those placed in positions of power can be trusted and have their best interest at heart. 

Anger at not being heard contributes to individuals sharing links to stories that align with his or her worldview whether factual or not. Often the sender believes the content they are reading to be factual or they probably would not have sent an article to a group of friends. The more an individual can drive home a pre-approved party talking point while eroding an opponent’s dignity, they become more and more popular.  Facts and research be damned. 

Increasingly we are only interested in candidates, newspapers, and television networks that subscribe to and enhance our worldview. Many feel that this has led us down the path of no return.  But if we can shift our public discourse to ideas instead of criticism, and personal attacks maybe we can correct our course and hope that within the next decade we can get on track again.