A skeptical view of politicians, often rooted in a perception of them serving their self interests, is not new. Over the millennia, controls have evolved to define a path that we, as a society, have agreed is acceptable. These controls are often situated in legislation or constitutions. But as empirical tools, that have advanced to address an issue, they feather into ambiguity as we depart from the area of focus into the details of a specific case. Laws and constitutions often require interpretation to determine how they apply, the evidence of an event needs to be tested, and for this reason we have courts, parliaments, and congresses, as fora for the expression of the different points of view, and the forming of a judgement on whose argument will prevail. There is an assumption of honesty on the part of the officers, and jury, and the integrity of the process. When any of the constituents is corrupted, people become disillusioned, loose faith, and become cynical.

“Scratch the surface of most cynics and you find a frustrated idealist — someone who made the mistake of converting his ideals into expectations.” ― Peter Senge/George Carlin

If there was ever a question as to why voters are disillusioned with their political leaders, the impeachment of Trump is an example. While the narcism of the protagonist himself attracts much of the attention, it is those in his party that follow him, not even blindly, for their own benefit, that is more disturbing. It is more disturbing because the many have banished the one voice that raised concern. If the protagonist is guilty of using his power to benefit his re-election, so are his followers.

They must choose whether to follow the facts, or to follow their fears; to uphold propriety, or to perpetuate partisanship; to champion the truth, or to legitimate lies; to defend the interests of the nation and its Constitution, or the personal interests of one vainglorious man. In short, whether to comply with their solemn oaths, or not. — George T. Conway III

It is troubling that the crucible of discovery has failed to function; that one party came with evidence, and arguments and the other was silent, offering only obfuscation, preventing the emergence of a considered, and tested outcome. If this were a court of law, then the argument of innocent until proven guilty would allow a defense of silence. But we are not in a court of law, we are in the court of politics, where perception is reality, where public perception, public opinion, demands to be quenched. With untested evidence, only one side is coloured in, the other remains blank, leaving the public to justify their interpretations based on their partisan alignment. As we remain locked in division, there is no advancement towards a resolution. The path is blocked. Our leaders have failed to carry us through. They are not leaders; they are wagging tails.

The expectation that the ideals of a constitutional process would prevail and be applied has been emasculated, leaving impotent the Congress to contain future perversions, and the frustrated public, who voted for a change, and got it, violated and draped apathetic over the guardrail.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *