What's the prognosis for respectful discourse?

Okay, I'm probably late to the party, but have you noticed that it doesn't seem possible anymore for opposing sides of a political issue to just - well, discuss?  In the middle of this Holy Week, it's a little cheesy to use the rebirth analogy, but I have to wonder: will there ever again be public discourse that doesn't consist of opposing sides simply talking over each other, vomiting hackneyed political points or vitriolic, screaming attacks that don't even pretend to be rational communication?

The Code Pink attack on Karl Rove yesterday was frankly embarrassing, with the would-be performer of a "citizen's arrest" being outclassed by Rove's response.  Even so, he had to cut his book-signing appearance short because of the disruption.  Similarly, Ann Coulter aborted her Canada speaking tour after being verbally attacked so venomously and loudly that she couldn't continue.  Oh, and "students" at a minor University of California campus are shrilly denouncing the upcoming appearance of Sarah Palin at, of all things, a fundraiser for professors' salaries and student scholarships.  The examples go on and on, these are just in the last four days!

What are people so scared about?  Why do mere words create such unreasoning hatred and fear?  Whatever happened to "sticks and stones"?

I don't have any real answers, I just have the feeling that we've lost the blessing of discourse.  If we can't even talk about the reasons we disagree, how will we ever come to understand the points of view of those with whom we disagree?  And at the risk of sounding like Rodney King, I can vehemently disagree with someone else's opinion and still respect that person.  I just want the opportunity to process the disagreement without being screamed at.  Is that too much to ask?  For some people, apparently it is.  And our national discourse is suffering deeply because of it.

George Washington was right

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

"Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it."

George Washington, "Farewell Address"

Translated from late-18th-century English, our first, arguably greatest and certainly most humble President warned that political parties do more harm than good, and should be discouraged at virtually any cost, because they lead to the despotism of the party in power over the party out of power and, finally, to a person who "turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty. I am afraid in my soul that we have reached that point.

A personal anecdote to prove that a pox is appropriate on BOTH their houses: I was considering at one time running for district court judge here in Bexar County, Texas. Not having participated in the local party politics, I looked up the Bexar County Republican Party chairman and made an appointment to discuss how one goes about running for judge. I explained who I was and what I thought made me a good candidate for judge. When I finished, he told me I was just what they were looking for: a bilingual Anglo military veteran with good connections and a background as a trial attorney.

"Now", he said, "we need to get you over to see Jim [no last names for this post]".

"Who is that?", says I.

"The kingmaker", says the Republican Party Chair. "If he likes you, we'll support you as a candidate."

This is a name I'd never heard before. I began to realize that there was a power behind the power, and a price to be paid to get support from my own party. It disgusted me and played a large role in my decision not to run.

I have no doubt the same shadow players exist in the Democrat power structure, and in fact once received unsolicited a call from a friend who is a "player" in the Democrat party, asking me not to support a particular female [Republican] candidate for judge because "she hasn't paid her dues". I knew this candidate was (and still is) an excellent attorney and a person whose judicial temperament was above reproach, and that dues had nothing to do with her qualifications. The call, like my conversation with the party chairman, made me sick to my stomach.

Call me naive; call me silly. I just believe that party affiliation should not be the touchstone of our decisions to cast our vote. I am a conservative; many Republicans aren't. I have Democrat friends for whom I have voted repeatedly for judge, despite knowing full well their party affiliation. A friend of mine, Charles Gonzalez, currently a United States Representative from Texas, received my vote as a judge and, the first time around, as a candidate for House of Representatives. He was a very good judge, but showed himself to be a party hack as a politician, and I stopped voting for him (sorry, Charlie - I still love ya!).

Things have to change. We must stop allowing politicians to have 10 and 20-year (and more) careers in office. That's not how the Founders meant the system to operate. Nobody can keep his or her sense of what's going on outside the beltway, or city council chambers, or Austin, for more than two terms. Entitlement has become the rule, and NOBODY's entitled to my tax money in the form of pay and benefits for life.

It all fits together: party politics leads to party hacks and party bosses; blind, unthinking ballot casting leads to party despotism and the kind of win-at-all-costs alley fighting we've seen over the last 20 years, with elected officials thinking more of lining their pockets and consolidating their power than of working for the interests of their constituents and of the nation. Any politician who sneers at the principles of integrity first and service before self should be subjected to the full fury of his or her constituents. Why do we stand still for the Foleys, Clintons, Sanfords and Franks of our current political landscape?

Washington was right: party politics are the root of all kinds of evil, regardless of the party. Find out where your candidate stands, don't just vote the straight ticket! Your future and your country's future demand it.

...But Who's Counting? The Census Scam.

After a long (in terms of stuff I hadda do) weekend, I'm getting back to reviewing the Obama administration's growing list of remarkable (a descriptive, not an approbation) initiatives. Today's jaw-dropper is the stated intent to bring oversight of the 2010 census into the White House; specifically, into the office of Rahm Emanuel, perhaps the most partisan Chief of Staff in American history and one who unabashedly starts with, rather than resorting to, the politics of personal destruction to accomplish his team's objectives. Another example of the pathologic need for control of all aspects of life in America, this is a bald-faced power grab to ensure the census numbers permit Emanuel, et al to redraw demographic population lines so that Democrat candidates have the advantage in every district.

Nobody except Obama and Emanuel and their henchmen has said this is a good idea. Even other Democrats are saying this blurs the lines between politics and legitimate information gathering. Does that matter to this administration? Apparently not. As for decades past, the acquisition and retention of power by liberals trumps all other considerations.

I'm willing to listen to an explanation of why it's a good idea to put control of the census inside the White House. Anybody? Buehler?

The Bloom Is Already Off The Rose

"On Thursday, the White House conceded that the husband of Labor Secretary-nominee Hilda Solis this week paid about $6,400 to settle tax liens on his business that had been outstanding for as long as 16 years. The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee postponed a confirmation hearing after the news broke." - Wall Street Journal, 6 Feb 09.

"[President Obama] may have to change from an open hand to a closed fist" to get Republicans in the Senate to fall in line - George Stephanopoulis in an interview with Christ Cuomo, 6 Feb 09

Obama spent a good bit of his speech last light heaping scorn, derision and ridicule on Republicans simply because they've called him to account for some of the ludicrous spending in the proposed "stimulus" bill presently before the Senate.

This from the man who can't seem to find anyone qualified for public appointment who hasn't flouted the tax laws his branch of government is charged with enforcing.

This from the man who was touted as being the first "post-partisan president" when he was running.

This from the man who promised to have the most ethical administration in history.

Two weeks in, and he's already been reduced from "The Messiah" to a Chicago hack politician pulling out the truncheons against those who disagree with him. It's going to be a long four years for this President.