Tales of our Times

By JOHN BARTLIT
New Mexico Citizens
for Clean Air & Water

Judgment is truly an individual matter. This nation was founded on the notion that individuals’ judgments justify a nation’s government more than anything else. Now watch each political party promote its own ubiquity and power. Each party seeks more yet, to handle its sneaky rival. And the vision of personal judgments fades in strange new ways.

Interactions between the two big parties have made the political process less and less useful for making judgments. Neighborly sorts deplore society’s loss of “civility.”

But how do we know civility when we see it and does it really matter? Party agents say that civility is just acting nicer; nicety gains nothing, they say. Parties say instead they have to teach the public about truth and show many ways the rival party wrongly thinks it knows all there is to know. Doubts grow about how much of the truth either party really wants.

Over centuries, citizens saw the common patterns that humans have long used to evade the truth. So civilization evolved means of disrupting those patterns. The civil means are called “trials.” In each step, court proceedings zero in closer to the truth.

Look at a trial, with or without a jury: start with the black robe, “May it please the Court … Your Honor”, “the prosecution calls Mr. Grayson to the stand”, the defense cross-examines, rebuttal testimony, and closing statements. Courtrooms are dripping in civility, yet no one there would say a trial is “nice.” The exacting process verifies and weighs facts in dispute much better and faster than is done by stylized insults used in politics.

Elsewhere, the wasting of judgment looms like a drug addiction. The dwindling ability of Congress to weigh evidence for and against proposals has stirred changes. For one, both parties have looked outside of Congress for a forum in which judging still prevails. Increasingly, party strategists turn to lawsuits to get a well considered judgment. The lawsuit route has made the most news, of late, in questions of policing or voting.

Verdicts in trials do not reliably match anyone’s policy preferences. This variance is natural when random sets of people judge sums of precise evidence in accord with stable criteria, rather than running flat-out policy duels. A verdict in court cannot be tabled in committee if the other party has control. This in itself is a refreshing change.

But the strangest change in Congress is not the use of lawsuits in lieu of legislation. The most stunning change is an ugly twist exerted by each party. Parties now censure members for using their judgment. American parties are stifling free speech. That reversion has begun amid the dilemma of bipartisan actions.

“Bipartisan” is a word people tend to praise. Folks are drawn to the thought of gaining broader support for their policy choices. Yet in dealing with real problems, “bipartisan” means working across party lines. To be blunt, “across party lines” is a two-way street. Your party’s better ideas will gain outside support and your people on occasion will support rival ideas. Think that through.

Republican Representatives Liz Cheney (WY) and Adam Kinzinger (IL) judged the actions of President Trump on and around Jan. 6, 2021, the same as most Democrats did. They explained their judgment frequently to news reporters. For not toeing the party line, both senators were formally censured (pilloried) by their fellow Republicans.

Democratic Senators Joe Manchin (WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (AZ) judged some Democratic bills in Congress the same as most Republicans did. They explained their judgment frequently to news reporters. For not toeing the party line, both senators were formally censured (mocked) by their fellow Democrats.

Parties debate which of these cases is worse. I ask: Are authoritarian parties better or worse than authoritarian government? To me, the concept of blackballs hits a new low in valuing substantive debate in Congress.

On the bright side (sort of), the collaboration that exists may go on outside the spotlight. But come next primary election season, big parties will again look to dump candidates who might work on issues jointly.

These intrigues work to rally “the base”, but they remedy no problems. None of these aims fosters a republic.