The Relevance of Opinions

 I understand that people today are reluctant to sign their names to opinions in today's angry world.  I have blogged in the past about how I miss the days when we went to parties and argued politics but left at the end of the evening as friends.  What was essential to those arguments was the accuracy of the information about which we argued.  One would think that today we have access to even better sources for accurate information, but it seems to me that traditional correspondents like Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite have been smothered by news filled with opinion rather than information.

Make sure you are getting aboard the right Band Wagon before getting aboard.

  There is little point in discussing politics with friends when both believe their source is the only accurate information in a world of so much misinformation, as well as so many people who no longer care about anything but the price of eggs.  The bird disease that required killing countless chickens to stop the spread is important, but it requires a government that relates the problem to making sure the disease is not spread to people rather than a government that spreads misinformation. 

My first responsibility as a young attorney was in a government office.  I remember my experience of creating forms that could be completed by typing in a few blanks.  The typists who had been stuck typing the page-long forms were thrilled with the amended forms, but their supervisor was furious.  She demanded that we go back to the old way of doing it--with my reading the entire form into the Dictaphone, the typist typing the entire document, and my having to proof the entire document to be sure there were not mistakes.  When I tried to explain how much more efficient the form would be, she furiously demanded that the old way of doing it be continued.  She refused to give me any reason why.

That example, although it occurred years ago, is an example of government waste, and soon after, I was recruited by a law firm and left the government position.  I hope my director resolved the unnecessary typing to relieve the typists from the wasted time of typing those boring forms.  In that case, it certainly was not the typists wanting to preserve a boring job.  There probably still are supervisor's wasting time to hold on to their jobs, and probably young attorneys who turn the problem over to their boss.  However, firing everyone in both offices would not have been the appropriate solution to the problem. Nor is it now! 

So, what does this have to do with the relevance of opinions?  The freedom we were given under our constitution requires responsibility.  Our leaders take an oath to the constitution, not to the person under whom they serve.  The Founding Fathers designed a system which is actually quite amazing in that it both gives and takes away power from each branch of the constitution.  I found it quite interesting in reviewing that remarkable American system of governing, and if you missed it last week, I hope you will read it.  However, it only works if those we elect are responsible enough to read and understand our Constitution and brave enough to do what they believe is right, not what they think they must do to be reelected.  

Many of us today, if not most, avoid discussing politics at parties.  Perhaps that is because we are more inclined to believe the other side is always wrong.  House leader Newt Gingrich was the Leader who made everyone sign an oath to always align with the party.  That was a bad decision, regardless of which party is in the majority.  If everyone in the party must vote the same, why do we waste time and money for voting and flying them back and forth from their homes to Washington.  If Senator Cassidy, a medical doctor, felt such concern about a candidate who does not believe in proven medical vaccinations and treatments, why was he pressured by his party into voting contrary to his own training and judgement.  Our system gave the President the right to select his choice, but the system also gave the members of the Senate the duty to decline to agree if they had cause.  That responsibility is one of the most important responsibilities of the Senate, and if they are compelled by others to ignore that responsibility, they are ignoring their oath to the Constitution.  The President might as well just select whomever he pleases.  

It is not just the roles those that we elect play, but also the responsibility we have in electing them.  The friendly arguments we were once able to have at parties mattered.