I think the place to start this foray back into politics is with Prickly City, because the biggest issue facing the country is not who's right or who's wrong but the incredible divisions growing between us.
And we shouldn't pass it off with a shrug and "they all do it."
"They're trying to kill me," Yossarian told him calmly.
"No one's trying to kill you," Clevinger cried.
"They why are they shooting at me?" Yossarian asked.
"They're shooting at everyone," Clevinger answered. "They're
trying to kill everyone."
"And what difference does that make?"
Steve Artley is right, too, that today's pronouncements about how the system -- specifically court appointments -- should work will change when the balance of power shifts.
The president's recent press conference was instructive on this topic in a couple of ways, and, if you use Ctl-F and search for "Supreme Court," you'll find some interesting commentary from his point of view, including a non-defense of his 2006 vote to stifle consideration of Samuel Alito's nomination.
Yes, it happened and he doesn't deny it, but neither does he defend it.
That's significant, because you don't often hear that sort of discussion of past deeds, and it's sure not for lack of opportunity.
He also makes the point that it's illogical to proclaim your adherence to the original intent of the Founders and yet argue that there is some point in an administration when the President is no longer empowered to nominate Supreme Court justices.
Pat Bagley makes the same point, and my question would be whether we'll see non-defenses of this paralysis in the future?
As Obama said, his vote was a case of political expediency not to be praised but also not to be surprised by, and I agree with his point that it is not helpful to conflate single votes with overall policies.
Despite the gamesmanship that went into things, Alito got his hearing, he got his vote, he won appointment.
Moreover, the Democrats did not announce, at the start of George W. Bush's administration, that they intended to block his policies and make him a one-term president. It may have been their plan, but they didn't make it their announced policy.
So, if they both do it, they at least approach it differently.
I like David Horsey's cartoon, but it is less instructive than his essay on the topic.
Horsey points out that, in 1960, the differences between Nixon and Kennedy were fairly nuanced, particularly compared to the wildly polarized politics of today.
That's not to say there weren't a lot of voices, he goes on to note, but they weren't all on one side or the other:
There were, of course, staunchly conservative Republicans back then. They raised up Barry Goldwater as their standard-bearer in 1964 and lost in a landslide. But there were also Rockefeller Republicans; socially liberal, pro-business and disdainful of extreme rightist groups such as the John Birch Society. Meanwhile, power in the Democratic Party of the '60s was split between FDR liberals and the old guard Southern racists who ran the most powerful committees in Congress.
But that has changed, he notes, and, on the GOP side of the growing divide, Republicans have built their strength "by riling up the most conservative voters, and now the riled-up are dominating the GOP primary campaign and giving respectability to points of view that Republicans of a past era would have rejected outright."
Some of those points of view seem hateful and abhorrent, and that's why we have elections. But others are clearly, objectively delusional, and, dammit, you don't vote on facts.
At least, you shouldn't.
And I think Horsey makes an assumption that may not prove out: That the current Republican establishment wants to dismount.
David Fitzsimmons argues otherwise, and I'm not inclined to disagree.
John Boehner didn't step down because he wanted to spend more time with his family. He stepped down because he could no longer do his job in a way that would allow him to contemplate the bedroom ceiling at night.
If there remains a "Republican Establishment" that resembles the GOP of the past, it's clearly not in control, not simply of the voters, but of its own core membership. Boehner has handed the reins of the tiger over to Paul Ryan, and even Ryan struggles to stay on the back and out of the belly of the beast.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle, Joel Pett comes as close as I've seen to illustrating the crisis facing the Democratic Party.
Granted, while I try to track both camps in my cartooning feeds, my social media feed tends to be progressive. So I'm aware of some accusations flying between GOP camps about unfair tactics, but I haven't seen anyone there say "If you support this candidate, the other party will win."
Nor have I seen people within the GOP invent an insulting nickname for the inevitable hotheads and trolls of social media and conflate it into some kind of organized movement against their candidate and themselves.
Republicans seem to confine their back-and-forth to statements about the candidates, while, on the Democratic side, the sniping appears more aimed at supporters.
Maybe "both sides do it," but I think the onus is on the Clinton camp to keep the lines open.
For one thing, Sanders has stated specifically not only that he doesn't want the support of people who fling insults at the other side, but that, whoever wins the nomination, it's critical to support the Democratic ticket in November.
I haven't heard that from Hillary -- feel free to leave links in the comments if you have direct quotes.
Meanwhile, polls show either Democrat beating any Republican except possibly Rubio.
But Sanders has attracted a group of new, idealistic, inexperienced voters, and the polls do not take into consideration an entire bloc being alienated by insults and dismissal.
Some guy said something last week about the difference between building walls and building bridges.
But apparently only Trump heard him, and he disagreed.
Now here's your moment of retro zen
Just remember: three hundred and fifty million people in your country, and this lot is the best both parties can scrape up for the Leader of the Free World (TM).
Three hundred and fifty million.....
Of course, looking at it from across the border, what I find amusing is how they all really come off as alike, regardless of platform or affiliation.
Posted by: sean martin | 02/21/2016 at 10:15 AM
Speaking of bridges, a folk singer named Bill Staines wrote a song of that name; I think you'd like it.
Posted by: Rogers George | 02/21/2016 at 12:19 PM
Last week, I heard Clinton say that either one of them is far better than anyone the Republicans have to offer, but I don't recall the exact words, so I can't search for a transcript of it.
Posted by: Ed Rush | 02/22/2016 at 01:42 PM
Well, that's good, then, because I hadn't heard anything conciliatory from that side and, while old gaffers like me will stay in the game regardless, I worry about idealists.
Posted by: Mike Peterson | 02/22/2016 at 03:58 PM
(Hadn't heard Bill Staines' name in awhile -- flash from the past!)
Posted by: Mike Peterson | 02/22/2016 at 03:59 PM