Tales of our Times
By JOHN BARTLIT
New Mexico Citizens
for Clean Air & Water
“Tales Of Our Times” in December identified weird problems that the big parties create with powers they jointly grant themselves. My next column, in January, recalled that “Founders Saw Party Politics As Trouble For The Nation.” All these pieces begin a grim story.
My December column here dealt with the autocratic rules that run our “democracy” in Congress. These rules are set by joint effort and mutual consent of both parties, which limits their news appeal. Instead, crowds today are caught up in the barbs prepared by the crusty red party and the crusty rival blue party. Each party enlists barbs to turn the tables on the other. Surly sorts lead the trend. The sharpest barbs get the most play. The harms of this game get almost none.
My January column here focused on the founders’ harsh views of parties and their age-old penchant for turmoil. The explicit warnings from the founders have faded from the public forum due to constant campaigning from both parties. Though barely noticed by the news, Washington’s Farewell Address (1796) still is read aloud every year in the U.S. Senate.
The two parties insist they are not alike. I agree that their worst choices differ. For instance, I am confident that the 2020 election was not stolen. My confidence in the election does not come from media “analysts” or tribes of lobbyists, who always tell partial stories. My full confidence relies on the 60-odd court decisions on voting and voting conduct, mostly from Republican judges, that cite the paucity of legal-grade evidence of alleged fraud. U.S. courts formally reject barbs because they are not legal-grade evidence. Barbs count for nil. The court’s enforced thoroughness creates the rule of law, which also gets too little attention in the news.
In the end, barbs are not the worst poisons of democracy; raw barbs at least are easily seen. A worse threat to healthy governance is the all-purpose tactic that runs on impulse. People seek ways to strike down others’ ideas in a four-word stroke. A reliable way to win debates (or better yet, to avoid debates) is to reframe earlier leaders as villains. Snippets are the style.
Some 160 years after Washington’s Farewell Address, a young president gave voice to, “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” If these words are taken at face value, these distinctive presidents spoke for the same love of country. But face value is not the sole currency in politics. Wings in each party know how to fuel their causes by dismembering words and ideas. Matters are soon muddled.
If a value held in common dare show itself today, varied wings of parties will give it their separate spins aimed to head off any basis for common gain. By rote, the key asset is lost at the get-go. Those shrill spins pose as thoughts.
Say a “MAGA” gets an urge to squash the founders’ harsh warnings about parties: founders can be called “old guys.” Then note that all the founders but Washington joined a party. If a “progressive” yens to stomp out the founders’ ideas at the moment, their owning slaves is a surefire basis.
If a “conservative” is poised to smear JFK’s concern for “country”, Kennedy can be called a “commie” or a socialist. If a “new liberal” dislikes JFK’s pride of country, the knock on Kennedy will say he “ignores the plight of the poor.” You see the quick recipe.
Over time, added care by even a small portion of newspeople and voters on either side could start repairing our country. Governance fails when barbs playact as quality evidence and policy thoughts. So, speak of legal-grade evidence and searching ideas. Hark back to Washington’s warning to mute “the spirit of revenge” and slow the party-ing shots.
