Where's The Voice Of Reason?

The tone of the debate about the May/Buddington City Council Resolution is turning decidedly nasty. Unnecessarily so, in my opinion.

As a former senator from Massachusetts and fellow graduate of my alma mater wrote some years ago:

"With respect to the war in which we are now involved, the course which our principles require us to pursue cannot be doubtful. It is now the law of the land, and as such we are bound to regard it. Resistance and insurrection form no part of our creed. The disciples of Washington are neither tyrants in power nor rebels out. If we are taxed to carry on this war we shall disregard certain distinguished examples and shall pay. If our personal services are required we shall yield them to the precise extent of our constitutional liability.

At the same time the world may be assured that we know our rights and shall exercise them. We shall express our opinions on this, as on every measure of the government,--I trust without passion, I am certain without fear. By the exercise of our constitutional right of suffrage, by the peaceable remedy of election, we shall seek to restore wisdom to our councils, and peace to our country.(emphasis added)"

If this isn't the most eloquent plea for reason that I've read this week, I don't know what is.

There are voices on both sides that seem to think that volume wins, and the more slander one can heap upon their opponents and their motivations, the more merit that gives their arguments. There's no attempt on the right to see the frustration on the left; no attempt on the left to see the apprehension on the right. Instead, we get simultaneously more shrill and more smug and appeals to reason get thrown into the dumpster.

Polarization has led to near-total stagnation of the national electorate. Nothing gets done except by executive fiat, which half the country hits the roof over while the other half gets all defensive. Pretty soon the debate becomes as much about the debate as it does about the issue (hello! this post!); trenches are dug, and minds refuse to change.

Some may argue it has been ever thus; Andy Etman has been posting quotes from the past that illustrate the sameness of the political rhetoric throughout history. True as that may be, ponder this: is that the most effective way to run a nation? Does making 50.1% of the populace happy constitute a worthy goal? Can't we do better?

For what it's worth, my only relevant observation on the actual issue at hand borders on the completely facetious: If the Council had decided to introduce the resolution, debate it for 10 minutes, and give it a straight up/down vote, wouldn't that have taken less of everyone's time than denying the agenda spot for the resolution and having to debate about that? If the argument is that the Council's time is too valuable for this sort of thing, then why waste everyone's time doing it the way it's being done now?

And if the argument is that the impeachment resolution goes against what our elected representatives believe their constituency wants, then why not just put it to a vote and defeat it?

What Mr. Webster said in July of 1812 is incredibly true today. The electorate will have its say. But contrary to what Mr. Hotaling's letter suggests, it can only act retroactively. We'll see if there's any fallout from this issue come November 6, 2007.