Divided: One Nation, One crisis

Our nation was founded on a great guiding idea. The framers of our constitution created the most democratic government in history, and they envisioned the1 3 individual states forming into a “more perfect Union” that might stand the rest of time. Yet, there was also “nightmare scenario” – a nation divided, filled with rising tensions, as voices called loudly for a separation of the Union. Open dislike, bordering on hatred, running ampant from main Street to the Halls of power power. Citizens stockpiling, arms, whilest plans are floated publicly for a potential civil war. Sounds like 1862, doesn’t it? Or some far off fearscape, easily avoided? It isn’t. In fact, that’s the “State of the Union” today.

Our federal government is currently more polarized than it has been since the end of Reconstruction and the Civil War. For decades past, politicians have lined up to bow and caper to extreme political movements, such as the “Tea Party” and “Justice Democrats” (to name but two). Candidates covetted their endorsements and their cash, and when elected focused dilligently on the interests of those groups: specifically: advancing hard core partizan agendas, while demonizing any elected leaders who would not bend over and allow themselves to be walked upon. The right attacked the left, the left attacked the right, and both viciously layed into the center. We saw this in real-time during the 2016 elections, where centrists dropped by the roadside, a master of polarization took the presidency, and nearly every Senate and Congressional race fell along predictable party lines. This resulted in a (temporarily) unified government, under the Republican Party, yet the groundwork was layed for the elections to come.

After two years of political guerrilla warfare between the major parties, and the attempted murder of several elected leaders, the 2018 elections rolled into an electorate that many us predicted would favor the centrists, with some going so far as to predict a return to ” the Era of good Feeling”. The opposite proved true: in a year that once again defied predictions, the centrists were the only true casualties. When all the votes were tallied, the right had become redder, the left bluer, and America got stuck with a divided government and a decimated political center. As was proved by the recent shutdown – initiated over less than 1/1,000th of our yearly governmet spending – 2019 will not be the magical “Year of Compromise” that our country desperately needs.

President Trump made a good point when, in a State of the Union address otherwise mired with political talking points, he called for a “new era of bipartisanship”. At that, the hall rose to applaud him, and rightly so! Politicians have been calling for that “new era” for over a decade. Yet, as the task of governing resumes, will they give substance to their rhetoric, and change? I doubt it. They’re politicians, and politicians care most about the next election. They will have no doubt seen the fate of, say, Senator Joe Donelly (D-Indiana) who was one of the most bipartisan members of the Senate, and lost his 2018 election as a result. Senator Jeff Flake (R-Arizona) didn’t even run, for the exact same reason. He was a centrist, and therefore stood no chance. The same story can be told for most of the 30+ centrists who lost seats in Congress. They lost, and were replaced with members of a much more partizan disposition. Thus the verdict was made clear: voters overwhelmingly favorred partisans to moderates. And that’s the important part. The voters chose partisanship.

Our current political system is not dysfunctional, as our leaders would claim. The Constitution is not useless, nor the Senate unbalanced. They’ve for 200+ years, and with luck they’ll continue to do so. What is dysfuctional is the political climate. When we, the voters, choose our leaders solely on their political affiliations, we must realize that we are creating a gridlock that, if left unchecked, will cripple the greatest republic the world has ever known. The 2020 elections are coming, and with them shall come a time for choosing. Whilst awaiting them we, the American voters, must raise our voices loudly in support of true leadership, and the politics of compromise. And when election day comes, we must back up that rhetoric with our votes. Only then will our elected leaders quit playing to their bases, and reassume that true duty for which they were elected, that they might form once again a government of, by and for the People of these United States.

Then shall we truly truly have attained a “more perfect Union”

Disclaimer: This was written in the first week of February, but publishing was delayed due to technical difficulties.

The Kavanaugh nomination: The politics before, during and after, as well as my opinions on the various players.

For those who do not know, I have long maintained an avid interest in the U.S. political system. Enspired by the now-failed Presidential campaign of U.S. Senator Bernard Sanders (I-Vt), I have watched with rapture as, over the past two years, our political systems dissolved into the chaotic reality we now see. Each day brings a news stream filled with the latest controversies: about the president, about countless local leaders, about the U.S.A…

Many Republicans will claim that the current political discord started with President Obama or President Clinton; Many Democrats will trace it back to the controversy ridden 2016 campaign of now-President Donald Trump. Though neither party will agree on who initiated the crisis, voters across he political spectrum can point to the pinnacle of our disunion, the great crisis of our Republic. That, my friends, is the Supreme Court confirmation process of now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

The Senate is tasked with providing “advice and consent” on Supreme Court nominations. In the recent past, this has let to massive, bipartisan support of almost every nominee. Up until the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch (2017) 60 votes were required for confirmation. This was an informal mandate for bipartisanship. Even Gorsuch, whose nomination followed what was perhaps the most devise election year in recent history, received 55 votes, with support from multiple Democrats.

Thus, going into Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination, one would have expected a process that was civil, at the worst. Indeed, I, a Democrat, hoped Kavanaugh would pass. He seemed a good guy, and I saw no reason to oppose him

Yet, in the Senate, the battle lines were drawn long before his name was actually offered. After the first few days of hearings, it became clear that what we were watching was no more than a partisan show. The vast majority of the Republicans were going to vote Yes, and a similar number of Democrats would vote no. This was based not on his judicial qualifications, but on the partisan nature of those Senators.

Both sides showed a noticeable lack of impartiality, and tried to eschew the facts in order to cater to their political adherents. The Republican leadership on the Judiciary Committee refused to subpeona multiple relevant documents, while the Democrats themselves hid an important allegation from the committee, only to throw it out when it was clear they had no other path to halting the nomination. Both sides offered various excuses for their actions, but their actions were and are inexcusable. Regardless of the possible truth to the Democrats allegations, or the privacy rights the Republicans claimed when withholding documents, their intent is clear. Tilt the facts to achieve their partisan agendas.

The regular hearings having finished, the Senate now moved to consider the allegations of Dr Cristine Blasey Ford. This was as it should be, and all appeared well. Yet, once again, the battle lines were drawn before a word was spoken. The Republicans attacked the credibility of Ford,and, with reason, the timing of her allegations. Meanwhile, the Democrats all started digging for more allegations. Regardless of the possible truth of Blasey Ford’s testimony this was an improper attempt by committee partisans to misuse Dr Ford’s allegations for political gain.

Kavanaugh has been confirmed, on a party line vote, and for better or worse he is on the court for life. Though, in the end, I did not support his confirmation, I believe that the real damage of this fight was inflicted on (and by) the Senate. Of the 100 men and women elected to serve in the world’s highest “deliberative body” only 11 truly did any deliberating during this poisoned process. On the Republican side we had Sens Ben Sasse (R-NE) Susan Collins (R-ME) Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Bob Corker (R-TN). For the Democrats, Bill Nelson (D-Florida) Doug Jones (D-Alabama) Joe Donnelly (D-Indiana) Joe Manchin (D-WVA), Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and Heidi Hietkamp (D-ND). These 11 senators seem like the last remnant of the great dilibarative body that was once the U.S. Senate. Thanks to them, the Senate did it’s job. Yet, Corker and Flake are Retiring, Nelson, Donnelly, Manchin, McCaskill and Heitkamp all face tough reelection races next month, and the same is likely to happen for the others in 2020. And if we loose them, what then? Will the Senate survive?

If recent events are any indicator, then I think not…

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started