Monday, September 13, 2004
He Said, then She Said
Do you want a perfect example of the type of political stories that are turning Americans off to politics? These are stories the focus on process, are superficial, highlight conflict, and boil down to nothing more than "he said, she said."
This story in the "Washington Post" is perfect. Here is the narrative:
Republicans want to paint Democrats as weak on defense. One way to do this is to force an amendment to the Constitution that protects the American flag. Republicans know that it will lose, but it will force three senators: Kerry, Edwards, and Daschle, to either go on record as opposing it or simply not show up for something so important.
Democrats claim that this is "gotcha" politics, that Republicans are insincere, and that it shows the lack of a political agenda by the Republicans who control the Congress.
What is missing?
First, what about the substantive issues that provide context to why Republicans, and many Democrats, feel strongly about protecting the flag? How about revisiting the 1989 case "Texas v Johnson"? How about giving us context regarding whether flag burning is such a serious issue that the Constitution needs amending to protect it?
If we had this, then perhaps politicians might think twice about playing loose with political rhetoric. As it exists, politicians have nothing to fear about such a crass political ploy.
Instead, we get winners and losers in a political game at a time when the big issues fall by the wayside.
|
This story in the "Washington Post" is perfect. Here is the narrative:
Republicans want to paint Democrats as weak on defense. One way to do this is to force an amendment to the Constitution that protects the American flag. Republicans know that it will lose, but it will force three senators: Kerry, Edwards, and Daschle, to either go on record as opposing it or simply not show up for something so important.
Democrats claim that this is "gotcha" politics, that Republicans are insincere, and that it shows the lack of a political agenda by the Republicans who control the Congress.
What is missing?
First, what about the substantive issues that provide context to why Republicans, and many Democrats, feel strongly about protecting the flag? How about revisiting the 1989 case "Texas v Johnson"? How about giving us context regarding whether flag burning is such a serious issue that the Constitution needs amending to protect it?
If we had this, then perhaps politicians might think twice about playing loose with political rhetoric. As it exists, politicians have nothing to fear about such a crass political ploy.
Instead, we get winners and losers in a political game at a time when the big issues fall by the wayside.
