Al Gore, Rob Brading, and Finding the Loyal Opposition
By George Karnezis of Portland, Oregon. George describes himself as a "semi-retired teacher, parent, reader, rhetorician trying to cope with infected discourse."
Travel is always broadening, the saying goes, and certainly our President's lack of it before taking office contributes to his tunnel vision. I had the good fortune to live in England for several months. What I found most intriguing there, aside from newspapers written for adults, was the idea of a "shadow government" consisting of a respected and respectful "loyal opposition."
Arguably the far and even not so far Republican right, driven by the genius of Karl Rove and his ilk, have succeeded in making the idea of a "loyal opposition" appear ludicrous and nothing more than an oxymoron, for to oppose the current administration verges, for them, on treason. That is why the right will not be satisfied until the last remnants of progressivism are eliminated.
Such extreme tendencies make the idea of a loyal opposition seem even more distant from a kinder, gentler form of political life. Lincoln's words about having "malice toward none and charity for all" appear delusional.
And what of those who have "lost" political races at the national level? Why is it that a person like Al Gore, who got more votes than his opponent, is immediately relegated to loser status, and that John Kerry, who arguably had a decent run, is at best merely a diminished voice on the national scene?
In another culture and another country, it might be possible to continue to honor these "defeated" as continuing standard bearers, but in America, where zero sum thinking is the rule, all that energy, sacrifice, and expertise that went into seeking the highest office means little if anything.
Time for a new face, we say, as if we're anxious for the new raft of TV shows or latest "blockbuster film" to occupy our attention and, just maybe, revive our political spirits.
On occasion I've heard this zero-sum, winner-take-all, if-you-lose-you-suck mentality expressed by Republican state legislators. The sentiment from the likes of Speaker Karen Minnis, who has prohibited deliberation of so much bipartisan-sponsored legislation she didn't like, seems to be: we won, you lost, shut up.
For folks like her, the possibility that an opponent can remain loyal to the idea of good government or serve the public good, appears ludicrous. In their view, and perhaps in the view of most Americans, any opposition's loyalties are only to itself. Consequently no common ground exists for collaboration based on higher loyalties. Compromise becomes a bad word and merely a synonym for betrayal.
As long as we lack this notion of a loyal opposition, we will continue to see the defeated as mere losers. They remain an embarrassment rather than acknowledged as having exhibited virtues and a presence that can still contribute to our struggle. Their dismissal seems most evident at the national level but, happily, less pronounced at the state level where candidates like Rob Brading, Minnis's opponent, are using their experience from a previous struggle to mount successful campaigns against those for whom opposition can never be loyal.
|
Oct. 04, 2006
Posted in guest column. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Oct 4, '06
"Arguably the far and even not so far [Democratic Left], driven by the genius of [Kari Chisholm] and his ilk, have succeeded in making the idea of a "loyal opposition" appear ludicrous and nothing more than an oxymoron, for to oppose [liberal agenda] verges, for them, on [stupidity]. That is why the [left] will not be satisfied until the last remnants of [conservatism] are eliminated." - modified from article posted today.
I think lefty's are more mean-spirited than righty's. Look at the board sweeping statements to see what I mean. Also comapre the posting on the Democratic Underground to Free Republic. Civil disucssion is necessary, but both sides are to blame.
Oct 4, '06
I disagree. I scan blogs from both sides, and one is no more mean-spirited than the other. Although they both have their fair share of fringe wingnuts, you gotta read between the lines.
3:26 p.m.
Oct 4, '06
Ha ha ha! I'm Karl Rove? Other than the first three letters of our first names, we got nothin' in common. Ideology of course, but I'm also just a website builder in Portland, Oregon.
Jeepers - I'm not even in the top 10 most influential political consultants in Oregon, much less nationwide. Good lord, people.
(We won't even talk about the suggestion that I'm far left -- that's hardly true. I'm a partisan, not an ideologue.)
Oct 4, '06
Thank you for seeing at least part of the big picture. It is true that the concept of "loyal opposition" would require or at least imply common ground at some level beyond mere dissent for the current GOP SOP. I believe the Republicans assume the Democratic party leaders can never achieve that. They may be right, as there doesn't seem to be much effort to draw up a party-wide mission statement or to rally voters based on any cause other than getting Republicans out of office. It seems to me that is what is needed, widely stated and easy to interpret goals that are in line with the times. Even the Green Party has 10 Key Values right up front on their webpage. You've got to dig a little to pull up the Dems' 43 page platform, dated from 2004, and woefully vague. (Talking about a democratic and stable Iraq, and John Kerry.) Maybe losing candidates have become throw-away candidates because the issues and platforms they campaigned on are neither updated or recycled? Someone killed the donkey and used up all the glue?
4:38 p.m.
Oct 4, '06
http://www.dpo.org/inside/platform/platform_docs/DPO_2004_Platform.pdf
Is this the platform doc you were referring to? BTW, it was revised in 2005. It takes more than a blog or an idea to form a platform, it takes discussion, debate, and a vote at a platform convention..
Along with the discussion about loyal opposition, let us also have a discussion about democratic process and deliberation....
Oct 4, '06
This is the Democratic Party of Oregon's platform.
It's 2 pages long and contains 5 points. Here is my favorite passage:
As Oregon Democrats, we recognize that the citizens of our state and our country ARE the government. We will fight any forces that try to limit our freedoms or take the power that rightfully belongs to “We the People”. The Bill of Rights and associated civil liberties are not subject to the convenience of the government nor momentary security considerations. They are the enduring standard of our liberty.
5:10 p.m.
Oct 4, '06
I think lefty's are more mean-spirited than righty's. Look at the board sweeping statements to see what I mean. Also comapre the posting on the Democratic Underground to Free Republic. Civil disucssion is necessary, but both sides are to blame.
I sometimes wish lefties were as mean as righties. Maybe if our side was a little more aggressive--we might win more elections.
Alas, we're much better at governance than we are at winning elections.
Besides, one man's "mean spirited" is another man's "telling it like it is". I've been accused of both over at LO--on the same post.
More than once, come to think of it.
5:17 p.m.
Oct 4, '06
Here's the 1-page summary of what Oregon Democrats stand for. Dated 2006/2007.
Warning: PDF format.
Oct 4, '06
I sometimes wish lefties were as mean as righties. Maybe if our side was a little more aggressive--we might win more elections.
I'm confused again. Who are Oregon's "Loyal Opposition?" You know, those losers who can't win, but are relegated to the sidelines in the winner-takes-all electoral process.
Other than the Republican-controlled Oregon House, Democrats in this state own, and have owned, virtually every elective office of any importance: Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General, Oregon Senate, Superintendent of Education, four of five Congressional Reps, one of two U.S. Senators, all five City of Portland commissioners (including Mayor); all five Multnomah County Commissioners, etc...
Are we ready "to honor these 'defeated' [Republicans] as continuing standard bearers...?"
Oct 5, '06
Dear Wes:
You make a good point and I certainly concur that Republicans should be conceived as loyal opponents if they are in the minority. However, you make it sound like the "Republican controlled house" is really a minimal achievement, and the plain facts are these: that the Republican House speaker, Karen Minnis, has stifled and, in fact, diminished opportunities for public deliberation at the state level. She has done this by holding hearings at needlessly short notice, and by prohibiting debate on bipartisan-supported bills which she did not like. I talked with a REPUBLICAN legislator recently who said he wanted to deliberate on the civil union bill and that SHE wouldn't allow it. She is behaving autocratically by NOT allowing the air so necessary for a healthy democracy to thrive.
Our soldiers in Iraq are suffering and dying and their families enduring grave sacrifice so that democracy can flourish halfway around the world. Meanwhile, the likes of Karen Minnis, who resists having any extensive debate with her opponent, and stifles democratic (note small d), dishonors their sacrifice and the traditions of open government.
So let us hear no more about how the Republicans "only" control a teeny bit of the power in Oregon. Minnis's position and her actions demonstrate that she and her party are hardly a minimal presence on the political scene.