The operative theory is the more we know, the better. While they say we shouldn't inquire too deeply into how either laws or sausages are made, my profession believes in the disinfecting qualities of sunlight, and that a republic cannot work without an enlightened public--common folks cannot participate fully in "the process" if they don't have access to the necessary information.
And it is our job to make that information available.
That's the theory at least, though there's plenty of evidence that you can find evidence for any self-serving shibboleth you choose to believe. When everybody has an amplifier, people tend to get choosy about what they want to hear. Or, as someone once said, you can tell them the truth, but you can't make 'em hear you, much less think right.
Still, most times these days, I just want to watch baseball. Or Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt.
I think most of us who read newspaper columns and follow whatever we think the news is long ago decided who we are going to vote for in November. I don't think there's an argument I can make that will make you change your mind if you really believe that Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump ought to be the next president; all I can really say is I don't believe either of those scenarios is very likely. On the other hand, I don't know what's going to happen with the Republicans in Cleveland. I don't think Trump can win on the first ballot or that the party hierarchy will be able to appease his followers when they deny him the nomination. There might be real news--real history--coming out of that convention. We could watch the GOP rattle apart.
On the other hand, Bernie Sanders is getting awfully snippish. He doesn't sound at all like the protest candidate I thought he was--and that I believe he thought he was--going in. But I don't see how he can wrest the Democratic nomination away from Hillary Clinton either. Maybe he will. But my considered opinion is that we are going to see Clinton versus Cruz or maybe Paul Ryan in November, with Trump monkey-wrenching the works by running a third-party vanity campaign (if he can afford it) that will draw support from both candidates.
But he'll draw more from Ryan/Cruz. Clinton will win in a landslide. And we'll have another centrist Democrat in the White House for the next eight years while the Republicans rebuild themselves and maybe recover their moral compass. Maybe they'll learn their lesson about pandering to the dark side of Americans.
I admit my main problem with Clinton is fatigue. I just don't like dynastic succession on principle. Despite what the opposition says, Clinton is highly qualified. Sure, she benefited from being married to Bill Clinton, but she's proven she's highly competent. It goes without saying that she's a political animal, pragmatic to a fault, but under our system those are exactly the sort of people who flourish. Deeply held convictions might energize single issue constituents, but I can't really imagine anyone in this race doing a better job of the dull, drab work of statecraft than Hillary Clinton.
Sanders reminds me of a certain kind of faculty lounge ideologue. He's convinced he's right and that anyone who doesn't agree with him is either stupid or corrupt. I agree with him on a lot of issues, probably more than I agree with Clinton, but he still strikes me as the sort of lapel tugger that I'd cross the street to avoid. I believe he sincerely has the welfare of the American people at heart. But I also think he'd be a disaster as an executive.
H.L. Mencken once said that the only way for a journalist to look at a politician was "down." But Mencken was an unhappy, sour and sometimes dishonest writer; his influence on reporters and columnists is perhaps not as good as his imitators and progeny would have us believe. The cult of Mencken flatters itself by insisting that its cynicism is actually realism and that to believe in anything less tangible than the heft of a coin is to believe in fairies. The Menckenist assumption is that everyone is working an angle, that truth is largely irrelevant, and that all we call noble is either a good show or a sign of inherent and exploitable weakness.
I don't believe that. I don't necessarily think less of politicians; they are as essential to our way of life as traffic signals. They have different needs than most of us and their impulse for office-seeking is usually rooted in something other than a need to perform public service. Maybe they want power or approval or to demonstrate that they are capable of winning an election, and maybe their reasons are totally benign. But while I don't believe for a moment that they are running for office because they want to "serve" anyone, I know that there are plenty of good people in politics and that most people in politics do take their responsibilities seriously.
Politics has more or less devolved into rooting interests. We are Red or Blue. And for those of us who are fortunate enough to be able to indulge in politics as a hobby, there are few consequences in an election's outcome. We can expect tweaks, not revolutions. Since the time I've been able to vote, I imagine I have cast more votes for losing candidates than winners. And yet the center holds.
Regardless of who wins, I won't escape to Canada. Things have a way of devolving into everydayness. The more we learn, the less we're convinced it matters.
I've seen enough. Let's vote.
------------v------------
Philip Martin is a columnist and critic for the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Email him at pmartin@arkansasonline.com and read his blog at blooddirtandangels.com.
Editorial on 04/19/2016