HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Jan. 11, 2005 Blame it on George Washington. During the Revolution, all of the founders were equal candidates for hanging. Their shared fear of the noose masked their internal disputes. They won the war together, and it was in no small measure because they had a common loyalty to one person: George Washington. Put yourself in their shoes, and you see something we modern Americans miss. When they were designing their government, they knew George Washington was going to be the leader. They designed the constitution with Washington in mind. We look at the constitution for how it functions today, but when they first wrote it, they were creating a government that Washington could lead. If you read the constitution closely, you’ll notice that they made no provision for political parties. The founders hoped that leaders would emerge from the public, men of good character and enlightened judgment; like, um, Washington. They hoped that Washington’s successors would have Washington’s qualities. They couldn’t help themselves; Washington was that powerful a national symbol. They didn’t anticipate parties at all, because they had all just come through the revolution united. For example, they didn’t think of elections as partisan contests. We’re surprised to read that in the original constitution, the vice president was merely the person who came in second. The founders just took it for granted that the person who came in second was a man of almost equal character to the elected president, and since character was what mattered, who better to stand ready? The founders didn’t expect the election to be a bitter contest between partisans. They expected every nominee to be like Washington – men of unquestioned dignity and impartial disposition. Didn’t take long for that to evaporate. By the second cabinet meeting, Hamilton and Jefferson were sniping at each other, and the honeymoon was over. They wrote the constitution, though, before all that started. Now the constitution is more than just our social contract. The values animating the constitution also form our national myths, and our national culture. We still live in the public myth that we’re all Americans, and that at the end of the day, we all have the same values. Oh, we may haggle over how to achieve those values, but the public myth is that we’re all Americans. Our myth, culture, and constitution assume a national unity. Unity is the myth, but reality is partisan. We don’t all have the same values. America succeeds, not because we share the same basic values, but because we’ve learned to live together despite the differences. From the earliest days, the country made compromises. In Jefferson’s time, the southern states wanted a weak central government; the industrial, trading northern states wanted a strong central government. They had personal, self-serving reasons for why they wanted each style, mixed in with genuine philosophical reasons. They somehow made compromises, though, and that was the true achievement. Neither side caved in, but they learned to make a go of it anyway. It has ever been thus. The only time we couldn’t find compromise was the civil war. The tragedy of that war, however, left us with an enduring benefit: it is forever impossible for Americans to imagine breaking up ever again. That has been the most powerful lesson of America: not that we are a united people, but we know how live with differences. Thomas Friedman – perhaps the most influential opinion-maker on the most influential newspaper – expressed surprise that the election exit polls revealed that other Americans view religious liberty differently than he does. The fact that other Americans think differently than he does, about a fundamental value, surprised him. The naiveté behind his surprise is itself surprising. This country has had dividing lines, almost from the very beginning. Our great achievement is managing those divisions, not in suppressing them or socializing them away. The miraculous unity of George Washington was a hurricane’s eye, but we’ve lived comfortably in the partisan storm ever since. Rush Limbaugh is a partisan. He makes no apologies, nor should he. Anyone surprised by his partisanship is naïve; anyone offended by it is emotionally immature. We live in a partisan reality. I have some complaints with Rush Limbaugh, but they’re the same complaints I have about how we Americans conduct political conversation. We don’t have honest political conversation. Honesty demands that if you discover a flaw in your argument, even if your opponent points it out, you must surrender your current argument and rectify the flaw. Honesty demands, therefore, putting your arguments in jeopardy. You have to submit your positions to constant challenge. Now, political conversations are about how fellow citizens will spend common money to address common problems. Political speech is usually about practical proposals. All the more reason, then, to subject those proposals to rigorous scrutiny. Errors cost millions. Honesty demands that we always chew on political proposals, and we should never swallow them whole. We should challenge every proposal, and take the time to see every ramification. By the way, that’s what Congress was designed to do. But hearings and committee debates are dull. For entertainment’s sake, we’ve turned our political conversation over to celebrities: popular politicians and blow-dried pundits. And that’s the problem. Political celebrities are prima donnas. They don’t like challenges. Prima donnas want you to follow whatever they say, simply because they say it. That attitude kills honest conversation. When you conduct political conversation through political celebrities, image trumps honesty. For instance, the first rule of political celebrity is never let an opponent share your stage. Colin Powell gives one-on-one interviews; he never sits at a table where a Richard Holbrooke can contradict him. Hillary Clinton only gives one-on-one interviews, she avoids sitting at the same table where a Rick Santorum can contradict her. Lower- level political celebrities must share a stage with an opponent. The political prima donnas, however, can demand to appear unopposed and unchallenged. If political prima donnas won’t appear unless they get a free stage, the media cave in and give the superstar a free stage. Tough questions are insults. Prima donnas don’t answer critics. They speak; it is for the little people to listen. Rush Limbaugh is a celebrity. Sure, Rush allows liberals to call in and challenge him; but they do it on the Rush Limbaugh Show. Don’t kid yourself. Rush Limbaugh is never going to listen to a liberal, slap his forehead, and confess to change his vote. Ain’t gonna happen. To be fair to Rush, though, we don’t have a nonprofit media in this country. The media has to sell commercials in the marketplace, and the appeal of Rush’s show is his Valiant Joust against liberals. That’s his show’s theme, and that’s why people tune in, and Rush doesn’t disappoint. He is as much entertainer as he is political commentator, as I believe he’s said often himself. Rush Limbaugh doesn’t concern me. Prima donna politics concerns me greatly. ------------ About the author: KC Mulville holds graduate degrees in philosophy, and is an ex-Jesuit. Now a husband and father of four, he is a programmer for databases and for the web. Email KC Mulville: kcmulville@hotmail.com Tell a friend about this site! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED! |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
