OPINION | BRENDA LOOPER: Arrest infection

Brenda Looper
Brenda Looper


I spent my first semester of college as a political science major, primarily because my mom wanted me to become a lawyer. But that was never my dream, especially considering the cost of law school. It just didn't make sense for someone of limited means, especially since my heart wasn't in it.

Still, I kept it as my minor. Throughout my undergrad years, I sat in many classes, and can say without question that I had only one professor who let her political bias guide her teaching (I was in the middle even then, so passed the class without too much trouble, which couldn't be said of a few of my liberal classmates). It was the political science professor who was my first adviser, who was so impressed that I came from the 3rd District, which was represented by, at the time, the sole Republican in Arkansas' congressional delegation.

I had no idea of the political ideologies of most of my professors or my elementary and high school teachers unless I spent considerable time with them outside class, and some of them I still had no idea about until I friended them on Facebook decades later. That's really how it should be.

Politics, though, has now taken over everything, and there's little that hasn't been made worse by it. Maybe a couple of flowers in the local park, but I'm sure it'll get around to them soon.

Longtime readers know of my affection for public servants of the past like John Paul Hammerschmidt (the 3rd District congressman referenced above) and Dale Bumpers. Notice I call them public servants rather than politicians; they were politicians too, but their first priority was the good of the people, not politics. They would probably be horrified by what's going on in government now, not just nationally but here at home.

While we have people misusing words like "tyranny," "persecution," and "patriotism," they're also denigrating things like "compromise." You know, that thing that has been done since this country began to ensure the best outcome for the most people. Compromise lets all get some of what they want, and can make legislation better for everyone regardless of party. If neither side will budge because of politics, nothing gets done, or one side waits till it has sufficient power and passes everything on a party line.

Which is how D.C. has operated in the last couple of decades, and why I just can't stand politics as it's practiced today. As I wrote on my Facebook page recently, I'm disgusted "mostly because of the antics of fringe politicians who have in some cases become basically the voice of their party (party leaders, if you remain silent when people like [Marjorie Taylor Greene] make declarations, you're ceding leadership to them)." This applies no matter what party we're talking about.

All voices should be heard because good ideas can come from anywhere, but wise leaders know when to caution those at the far edges to rein themselves in if they want to get the work of the people accomplished. The goal for those in Congress should be to make things better for the majority of all people in the U.S., not their donors or their base. And let's recall that independents are the largest political group, not Democrats or Republicans.

The idea of working together for the greater good seems to have mostly disappeared, and we're all the poorer for it. There are some in both major parties who work in the vein of Hammerschmidt and Bumpers, but there are not nearly enough of them, and in some areas they can't get elected because they don't belong to the dominant party.

Instead of calm, deliberate debate, it's all about antagonizing the opposition and painting them as the root of all evil (that's love of money, according to the Bible, and campaign finance is a whole other can of worms). Have a needed piece of legislation that's been heavily researched and thoughtfully written? Meh; let's use this cookie-cutter bit of probably unconstitutional nonsense from a special-interest group because it will rile up the base.

Really? Why is this acceptable to so many people?

We could actually debate the filibuster, noting that it's no longer what it was intended to be, and maybe consider going back to when senators had to actually hold the floor rather than merely threaten a filibuster so that the Senate might once again be able to honestly claim to be a great deliberative body.

We could talk about not dumping the Electoral College, but rather standardizing how votes are awarded, as most states award them based on winner-takes-all. To more closely reflect voters' desires, I'd go with awarding votes proportionally; candidates would get the electoral votes of the districts they win in a state, and the overall winner of the state would get the two at-large votes.

And we could talk about what's actually in, and not in, voting-rights legislation, and give it the attention, debate and revision it deserves. But we won't.

Why? Politics. Which is also why many of us can no longer talk to each other without insults, misinformation and rancor.

Pardon me if I decline to engage.


Assistant Editor Brenda Looper is editor of the Voices page. Email her at blooper@adgnewsroom.com. Read her blog at blooper0223.wordpress.com.


Upcoming Events