Menu
Why I dropped out
I've been asked several times over the past few weeks why I never write about politics anymore and I'm going to use this column to explain why.
Politics used to be interesting, fun, and exciting, regardless of which political party you were a member of. Democrats and Republicans used to actually talk to each other. Not only among the party faithful but among our elected representatives as well. Many of them genuinely liked each other, even though they held different views on how best to serve the country and because of that there was bipartisan support for much of the legislation passed in Congress.
Even when people disagreed, they did it with civility and respect, criticizing the policy rather than the person. But no more.
I think the primary reason for this descent into the depths of incivility and disrespect lies at the feet of twenty four hour a day news channels that compete with each other for the advertising dollar. When Bill O'Reilly crows on his show about having the biggest audience of any political commentator, he's not talking to you and me, he's talking to advertisers and potential advertisers who want to get the biggest bang for their buck.
In regards to radio, the only thing we used to have was farm news, preaching, and music but today many stations have gone to talk radio where people talk, talk, talk, all the time and being fair and balanced has never been a goal. They rant and rave and demonize anyone who dares to take the other side of the issue.
Even the politicians who used to be cordial with each other seem to find that impossible to do any more. They screech and scream and impugn a person's character rather than focusing on their policy differences.
And party line votes in Congress have become the rule rather than the exception and bipartisanship is the victim. The Democrats vote one way, the Republicans vote the other. It has become a Congress of "no" if the other side supports it.
The recent Senate vote on confirming Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court is just one example. She was confirmed by a 63-37 vote. Only five Republicans voted yes. Only one Democrat voted no and that was none other than our own Senator Ben Nelson. The reason given for his no vote was that the people of Nebraska didn't want her confirmed for a variety of reasons and he intended to listen to his constituents. Now that's a fine thing for an elected official to do I suppose but the Senator comes from one of the reddest of the red states and, if that's the way he always determines his vote, he would have to vote with the Republicans every time which brings up the burning question, "What does it mean to be a Democrat in Nebraska?" Apparently not much.
I like the Senator personally. He helped me and my family immensely in the investigation of my son's death. I hosted a rally and get together for him during his most recent campaign for the Senate. We have exchanged phone calls and written correspondence with each other.
I'm just not sure why he's still a Democrat.
Was his "no" vote on the Kagan confirmation an attempt to get back on the right side with Nebraskans after the infamous "Cornhusker Kickback" fiasco?
Was he being an independent voice, as this newspaper often asserts, and voting his conscience without regard to political interests or party loyalty? Or was he just trying to shore up support for his next campaign? I have my ideas as I'm sure you do too but I won't express them here. It's just one more reason why I choose to stay away from politics.
Since Nebraska is a red state, most of my friends are Republicans and when a political topic comes up, most of the time we're able to have cordial discussions and debates and my views are not trashed by them because of our political differences. If only the same could be said about our elected representatives.
I don't have an answer to this polarized divisiveness. I just know it's an ugly, unseemly mess in Washington with nothing on the horizon to suggest it's going to get better any time soon.