"His Majesty's Opposition" was coined in 1826 by
John Hobhouse, Radical, later a Whig, to proclaim his ability to oppose the
sitting government while at the same time being loyal to nation and
regent. The phrase has come down to us
as "The Loyal Opposition," a
distinction too often ignored in Mid-East and Asian autocracies these
days. Erdogan, Putin, Sisi and lots of
others treat opposition as disloyalty if not outright treason.
In a representative democracy, like ours, to what should an
opposition be loyal? Not king nor
President but certainly to the foundation of law and governance. But in these contentious days, it seems that
our oppositions are increasingly disdainful, if not outright dismissive of the
processes of representative governance -- reaching compromise, searching for
pragmatic solutions to move forward.
Yes, I'm thinking of the Tea Party but also of the Occupy
movement. And of the Freedom
Caucus. And of the Ted Cruzes and Jim
Bishops and Donald Trumps of American civic life. Are they loyal to the processes of
representative governance? And the
anarchists -- well, anarchists are disloyal.
But I'm not ready to name the rest disloyal, but are they not an
"unloyal opposition?" Do they
not eschew compromise and collaboration; do they not simply seek confrontation,
denial and disruption?
David Brooks wrote recently that the center is not holding
-- extremes are becoming ever more strident and disinterested in the art of
governing. There is no strategy of
positive opposition, only tactics to destabilize and destroy. Destroy those governing whether of one's own
party or the other. Destroy the "enemy"
opponent. Seed suspicion, disbelief, and
disdain.
Look at Trey Gowdy, of the 4th of South Carolina, confronting Hilary
Clinton: prove your innocence. After the
11 hours of disbelief and attack, he said that she had "answered as she
always has" clearly implying that she's "still lying under oath." (Gowdy has starred in a couple of reality TV
episodes -- would you buy a used car from this dandy?)
And what of Jim Jordan (4th, Ohio) who demonstrated less the
former federal prosecutor and more the former high school wrestling coach: this
isn't an inquiry; grab a hold, don't let opponent catch a breath, go for the
pin? Or Mike Pompeo (4th Kansas -- what
is it about these 4th Congressional Districts anyway?) persisting in false
claims that Mike Blumenthal was Hilary's only source of advice on Libya to the
point that Andrea Mitchell was moved to sacrifice her reportorial impartiality
and counter him in public? Or Martha
Roby (2nd Alabama -- trying to work up to a 4th level inquisitor?) prim,
judgmental, thin-lipped and humorless, channeling Cotton Mather while fixated
on meaningless e-mails between low-level State Dept. staffers Hilary never heard
of?
This attitude of suspicion, of sniffing out conspiracies, of
distrust of representative governance is not isolated to Congress. At a local candidates forum here in our
little town, the challengers to city council members were tight lipped,
negative, suggesting conspiracy, and calling for "citizens' advisory
votes" on complex issues of governance that have been studied and debated
in depth. They oppose and lack faith in
representative government.
Even at the Supreme Court -- supposedly the steadying governor
on the engine of our democratic republic, we see dissenters using disdainful ad hominem attacks to discredit
majority opinions. Scalia and Thomas in
dissent seed scorn and disrespect for our democratic representative process.
Can another kind of opposition thrive? Of course.
Remember the happy warrior, Reagan? And what of Justin Trudeau in Canada, coming
from behind to majority by opposing with respect, with positive proposals and optimistic
belief in the system. Trudeau has
strengthened Canada's center.
Let's squeeze out an unloyal opposition. Don't fund them. Encourage those who seek compromise, who practice respectful, affirmative
listening, and who work to create pragmatic collaborations. Find more Joe Bidens and John Kasichs. Deny unloyal opposition a place to stand; vote
them out of our democratic representative system to which all of us should be
loyal. Demand of them: what are you for,
not just what are you against?
A fundamental difference between a loyal opposition and the current batch of obstructionists is that the former held a basic belief that government could and should solve problems, while the latter does not. This is tricky business, because in the name of reform removing a culture of earmarks removed the incentive for members of Congress to move legislation forward. What was needed was more "light" on the process so the voting public could assess their member's efficacy for their district, not a wholesale purge of a system which kept member's skins in the game. Transparency tends to highlight bad crony/campaign financing driven decision-making everywhere. Many current members of Congress want the system to be proven inept, favoring a rejection of socialism (libraries, roads, police departments, schools) for privatized solutions. The worse the process performs the better they can stir the base and avoid being primaried."
ReplyDeleteI do object to your putting Occupy movements in with obstructionists. Why are all candidates talking about income inequality and the systematic dismantling of the middle class? It's detractors said Occupy movements had no agenda. They were wrong. What they didn't have was leadership which could be compromised, identified and bought off!