Is There a Loyal Opposition Any More?
Every time one flap-du-jour dies down, Democrats create another. They seem unable to resist releasing foxes into the henhouse and throwing rocks at hornet nests.
Senator Durbin's clamor for his 15 minutes of fame follows this format. Of course, he is just a windup doll for the Left, mouthing a script. Too many others have sliced, diced, spindled, folded, and otherwise analyzed Durbin, so we have nothing to add to the flood of response. What strikes us is the collosal immaturity of these flaps-des-jours. Each happens at a cost, and America pays it, to no good purpose.
Our point is not to eliminate discourse. We must have that. Neither Republicans nor Democrats have any monopoly on truth or right. In fact, we have to wonder often if they see the truth and know what is right. Republicans act like the cowardly lion in the Wizard of Oz, cowering with moral uncertainty and self-defeating behavior. Democrats act like hyenas, packing together to acquire the next meal, with no regard to anything having any longer range to it or not, including their behavior of the moment. Everybody scurries in search of some immediate goal, utterly blind to big issues and our future. They make words, but few thoughts, and almost never make principles.
The wag definition of a politician is someone who can easily rise above his or her principles. This wag definition presupposes that any politician to whom this definition might apply has principles, other than narcissistic impulse gratification. What is the alternative to the politician? Well, all of our lives in the South, we have heard pontificating about how America needs "statesmen." The definition of "statesman" seemed clear enough by context--until recently.
Looking at the new flap, setting a time table to pull out of Iraq and GITMO as a willful blindness to the fact that we are at war with the scum penned up in GITMO, suddenly "statesmen" seemed less clear an idea, so we went to the dictionary. Encarta defines a statesman as "a senior politician who is widely respected for integrity and impartial concern for the public good." One of the jillions of Webster's dictionaries defined "statesman" as a governmental person who dealt with issues above the level of partisan politics. Both definitions nail down "statesmen" well enough for us. Both imply that a statesman has real principles, hopefully ones we can endorse.
From these definitions, we can heartily agree that America desperately needs statesmen. At the moment, we have perhaps two Democrat senators (Miller of Georgia and Lieberman of Connecticut) who could qualify, and their party has bound, gagged, and isolated them. The Republicans have a few, but recalling them as this is being written draws a blank. A few Republicans seem to be developing toward statesmanship, but they aren't there yet.
Statesmen rise above the level of irascible hyena packs and scared rabbits running for the nearest compromise. They deal with the principles determining the course of the country, particularly long range. Self-aggrandizement and power acquisition are not their major motivators.
That brings up the next attribute of the statesman.
Once, American government had its usual cadre of worthless politicians, but it also had people who passionately stood on issue principles, from opposite ends of the issues. They could fight with fury, but it was for something. And, at the base of their fighting, they united in defense of America's Constitution, even though they battled like mortal enemies. Those in the minority of power at the time but who stood on Constitutional principle were known as the "loyal opposition."
In time of war, the loyal opposition nevers tries to undercut America's guiding leadership, and its fighting men and women, as one example.
What guides opponents in our government these days? Despite different party names, Democrats and Republicans come from the same vat. No wonder America struggles so unnecessarily as a government at home and a power abroad. The issues have gotten bigger, and the men and women fumbling them have grown very, very small, indeed.
Senator Durbin's clamor for his 15 minutes of fame follows this format. Of course, he is just a windup doll for the Left, mouthing a script. Too many others have sliced, diced, spindled, folded, and otherwise analyzed Durbin, so we have nothing to add to the flood of response. What strikes us is the collosal immaturity of these flaps-des-jours. Each happens at a cost, and America pays it, to no good purpose.
Our point is not to eliminate discourse. We must have that. Neither Republicans nor Democrats have any monopoly on truth or right. In fact, we have to wonder often if they see the truth and know what is right. Republicans act like the cowardly lion in the Wizard of Oz, cowering with moral uncertainty and self-defeating behavior. Democrats act like hyenas, packing together to acquire the next meal, with no regard to anything having any longer range to it or not, including their behavior of the moment. Everybody scurries in search of some immediate goal, utterly blind to big issues and our future. They make words, but few thoughts, and almost never make principles.
The wag definition of a politician is someone who can easily rise above his or her principles. This wag definition presupposes that any politician to whom this definition might apply has principles, other than narcissistic impulse gratification. What is the alternative to the politician? Well, all of our lives in the South, we have heard pontificating about how America needs "statesmen." The definition of "statesman" seemed clear enough by context--until recently.
Looking at the new flap, setting a time table to pull out of Iraq and GITMO as a willful blindness to the fact that we are at war with the scum penned up in GITMO, suddenly "statesmen" seemed less clear an idea, so we went to the dictionary. Encarta defines a statesman as "a senior politician who is widely respected for integrity and impartial concern for the public good." One of the jillions of Webster's dictionaries defined "statesman" as a governmental person who dealt with issues above the level of partisan politics. Both definitions nail down "statesmen" well enough for us. Both imply that a statesman has real principles, hopefully ones we can endorse.
From these definitions, we can heartily agree that America desperately needs statesmen. At the moment, we have perhaps two Democrat senators (Miller of Georgia and Lieberman of Connecticut) who could qualify, and their party has bound, gagged, and isolated them. The Republicans have a few, but recalling them as this is being written draws a blank. A few Republicans seem to be developing toward statesmanship, but they aren't there yet.
Statesmen rise above the level of irascible hyena packs and scared rabbits running for the nearest compromise. They deal with the principles determining the course of the country, particularly long range. Self-aggrandizement and power acquisition are not their major motivators.
That brings up the next attribute of the statesman.
Once, American government had its usual cadre of worthless politicians, but it also had people who passionately stood on issue principles, from opposite ends of the issues. They could fight with fury, but it was for something. And, at the base of their fighting, they united in defense of America's Constitution, even though they battled like mortal enemies. Those in the minority of power at the time but who stood on Constitutional principle were known as the "loyal opposition."
In time of war, the loyal opposition nevers tries to undercut America's guiding leadership, and its fighting men and women, as one example.
What guides opponents in our government these days? Despite different party names, Democrats and Republicans come from the same vat. No wonder America struggles so unnecessarily as a government at home and a power abroad. The issues have gotten bigger, and the men and women fumbling them have grown very, very small, indeed.
posted by George Mason @ 6/21/2005 07:06:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home