MUNN'S "REALITY
CHECK" ON AMERICAN POLITICS
Like
Ralph Nader, it's Jim Munn himself who needs the "reality check" he calls
for in his latest column. He's like a cat who starves himself by refusing
to eat the ordinary cat food provided by his benefactors. In our naturally
imperfect democracy his scorn of practical politics only plays into the
hands of those who obstruct an evolutionary path toward his own
recognition of "the common needs of all humanity". Since we are not ruled
by philosopher kings, progress must be practical at the citizen's level of
existing conditions.
He's right that we should never forget
the faults in our nation's history, but his review of them omits the fact
that most of what he deplores was over the objections of many Americans at
the time. They were out-voted or misled by those in power. As the
organized or unorganized protesters they were simply not strong enough in
practical politics.
Practical politics is party
politics. Munn alludes to it only as "all the bickering and childish
mud-slinging every four years". But parties are coalitions of voters
sharing certain general or particular values or ideas. In every democracy
parties are as necessary for consistent progress as they are for effective
opposition to progress, as in our case of Democrats versus
Republicans. The "bickering" is usually about the devil's details that
represent unstated motives or constitute the substance of very serious
public policy.
Even though every legislation results
from some degree of collaboration and compromise (especially in the
foreign affairs of our nation as a whole), nothing in the reality of
American political and economic life can be clearer in actual results than
the broad distinction between Democrats and Republicans. Voters who split
their tickets, or who regard themselves as "independent" because they
choose randomly on the sole basis of attractive personality, in the end
will usually thwart their own political logic, directly or indirectly, by
supporting objectives that contradict each other.
That's because no official of any party
can help contributing to the whole food chain of its organization, from
bottom to top. The financial and ideological commitment of every member
is what determines a vast range of detailed partisan issues, which in
their entirety are beyond the grasp or even the personal interests of many
legislative colleagues, who simply must trust in the expert knowledge and
opinion of specialized partisan colleagues (as, for example, in tax law or
military technology). Modern industrial democracy is much too complex to
be mastered in all its aspects by any individual at any level of
authority, even in the laudable hopes of idealistic observers like Jim
Munn.
Jim should ask Bruce Tarr to explain
why he is a Republican, necessarily committed to the Bush food chain.
Likewise he should ask Paul McGeary,
who is running against Tarr for our State Senate, why he is in the
Democratic food chain. With crystal clarity McGeary will explain his
commitment, as a mainstream Democrat, to contesting a popular incumbent
Republican. Paul is a bright new political light in our district,
extremely well informed and extraordinarily articulate. He should be
given a chance to prove himself a very productive member of the food chain
that extends by way of Beacon Hill from Tony Verga to John Tierney, to Ted
Kennedy, and finally to John Kerry as President.
It would be a civic education for Jim
and all the rest of us to hear a debate between these two honorable
partisans.
Gloucester
