While reading through newspaper articles this morning about California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and judicial nominee Samuel Alito, I discovered they actually had more things in common and in fact share a similar plight.
Both are fighting for their political/judicial careers in the face of harsh criticisms from the Democrats. Both are the focal points of their respective constituencies. And both are attempting to pull off the same strategy in moving towards the middle: Schwarzenegger, in his recently proposed budget calling for increased spending, and Alito, in his judicial confirmation hearing, stated that he would keep an “open mind” in the issue of abortion.
I am not going to evaluate their specific policies or positions here, but explain more about the nature of politics. Why moving towards the middle make for an effective strategy for political players on one hand, and a political smokescreen for the American public, on the other?
What exactly are both Schwarzenegger and Alito doing? For the political novice, this means treading softly among the enemy’s den, or more accurately, political maneuvering. The only way to achieve political power in our government is to reassure and convince political opponents that we won’t trample on their interests. In order to placate both sides of the aisle, it becomes a political necessity for Schwarzenegger to prudently choose to cut or fund those programs that will make the least political wakes, and for Alito, to not reveal any position that may bias him in front of the Judiciary Committee and cost him senate approval votes.
As Americans, we elect our leaders because we trust them to make sound policy, to represent us fairly in the political process. We imbue the same faith in our judges (albeit, they are appointed) to be fair and thoughtful in their opinions when handing down legal decisions. Yet, in order to implement the budget, like in Schwarzenegger’s case, or to be confirmed a seat in the highest court in the land, in Alito’s case, it requires both to move towards the middle if they are to achieve political or judicial authority.
What does this mean to the American public? The consequences are apparent. Critics and pundits alike jibber-jabber about it all the time. “We’re not looking at the real issue here…what Alito will actually do,” a Harvard law professor told CNN’s Anderson Cooper, “the questioning [by the Judicial Committee]is partisan.” In the budget debate, similar rhetoric is used. While the interests are more diffused, they can still be delineated among party lines. The political process becomes a game of who can successfully jump more hoops or avoid being trapped by their political opponents. For the American people who admire and expect integrity, honesty and openness from government officials, this game has become extremely frustrating. As a result, the public becomes disillusioned by the process.
What the political process makes us lose sight of are the genuine intentions of the political actor. The mist of politics obfuscates what the real person would actually say or do. In the end, that is a shame. Unfortunately, it’s the reality of the political process; the natural consequences of Madison's Federalist 10 and 51, where he constructed an array of checks and balances and compromise begetting compromise.
I believe this is what turns a lot of Americans off about politics. They see the political process as a sham, and all politicians and judicial nominees are two-faced liars, unable to be trusted because it's all about winning the prize. But that’s the nature of politics. Not everyone will get everything they want, the perfect budget and justice not exluded. If you ever find yourself feeling this way, rest assure, our political system is most likely working the way it should.
No comments:
Post a Comment