First, let me say that I'm not a Democrat or a Republican. I'm not even an Independent, I'm completely unaffiliated with any political party. That said, I saw something on the news today that bothered me...
Part A - The Illegal Letter
Senators fight all the time. They do it every day, it's actually kind of their job. But today in the American Congress, Senator Warren was reading a letter from Coretta Scott King (Widow of Martin Luther King Jr.) in regards to Senator Sessions that Mrs. King had written to a different senator in 1986. Now, Senator Warren got about as far as the word "Black" when she was politely informed that she had just broken the law!
Here's the letter she was reading. Can you tell what's illegal about it?
Dear Senator Thurmond:
I write to express my sincere opposition to the
confirmation of Jefferson B. Sessions as a federal district
court judge for the Southern District of Alabama. my
professional and personal roots in Alabama are deep and lasting.
Anyone who has used the power of his office as United States
Attorney to intimidate and chill the free exercise of the
ballot by citizens should not be elevated to our courts.
Mr. Sessions has used the awesome powers of his office in a
shabby attempt to intimidate and frighten elderly black voters.
For this reprehensible conduct, he should not be rewarded
with a federal judgeship.
I regret that a longstanding commitment prevents me from
appearing in person to testify against this nominee. However,
I have attached a copy of my statement opposing Mr. Sessions'
confirmation and I request that my statement as well as this
letter be made a part of the hearing record.
I do sincerely urge you to oppose the confirmation of
Mr. Sessions.
Sincerely,
Coretta Scott King
Part B - Rule Of Law
Apparently there's a law in America that Senators cannot "Impute each other's motivation", and even though they impute each other's motivation every day, they chose to selectively enforce that law in this case. Normally I wouldn't even care, it's obviously just politicians playing politics... right? Right! So why should I care about this?
It's important because Senator Sessions isn't up for promotion to Federal Judge anymore, now he's nominated to become the Attorney General (an even more critical position), and now Senator Warren is barred from speaking at all, not just about Senator Sessions, she was barred from speaking at all in the Senate until after Senator Sessions confirmation hearing.
Everything that's said and done in Congress is more "scripted" than those wrestling shows on television. And everybody likes picking a side so I understand that to some folks it might think it's great that a democrat was made silent, and sure, maybe it is, I don't know. But please put aside any partisan bias and consider the breadth and depth of what this means about the government.
Here's the content of that law, Rule XIX (the important parts are sections 2, 4, 5, and 6 so i'll skip the rest):
2. No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.
4. If any Senator, in speaking or otherwise, in the opinion of the Presiding Officer transgress the rules of the Senate the Presiding Officer shall, either on his own motion or at the request of any other Senator, call him to order; and when a Senator shall be called to order he shall take his seat, and may not proceed without leave of the Senate, which, if granted, shall be upon motion that he be allowed to proceed in order, which motion shall be determined without debate. Any Senator directed by the Presiding Officer to take his seat, and any Senator requesting the Presiding Officer to require a Senator to take his seat, may appeal from the ruling of the Chair, which appeal shall be open to debate.
5. If a Senator be called to order for words spoken in debate, upon the demand of the Senator or of any other Senator, the exceptionable words shall be taken down in writing, and read at the table for the information of the Senate.
6. Whenever confusion arises in the Chamber or the galleries, or demonstrations of approval or disapproval are indulged in by the occupants of the galleries, it shall be the duty of the Chair to enforce order on his own initiative and without any point of order being made by a Senator.
Part C - This Means Something!
Politicians always make such a big deal about the "letter of the law". Aside from the fact that Senator Elizabeth Warren isn't a "he" (can Rule XIX even apply to female senators with the sexist way that was written?), the real key word in the rule is "Impute", and a little googling reveals the definition of impute as follows:
represent (something, especially something undesirable) as being done, caused, or possessed by someone
That's what some people might call a Catch-All. It's just one of many 'weapons' that senators use against each other. It's a little bit like when wrestlers on TV smash a folding chair over each others face, or when they slam their opponent into a table. And just like pro wrestling, the congress is 100% scripted.
Did Senator Warren know that she was violating rule 19? Was she aware that consequently she wouldn't be allowed to speak at the congress until after Senator Sessions hearing? You bet she knew! They warned her about it on C-Span right before she read that letter, and she kept on reading it. Then she went directly to Twitter and CNN to complain about being silenced in the congress because Twitter and CNN have a much bigger audience than C-Span. Did the republicans conspire against the democrats? Did Senator Warren take a fall on C-Span just so that she could get a boost on mainstream news and social media?
These kinds of punches and counter punches are normal in congress, it's what they do. But what does it mean? Well, I'm not an expert at decoding politics, but I did happen to notice that Senator Warren neglected to speak on CNN about the meaning of Mrs. Kings letter. She didn't say much at all about Senator Sessions other than what was quoted from the letter which was written in 1986.
Why would she go through such a costly and elaborate move of taking a fall on C-Span and then come back on CNN with such a week argument. She had the spotlight and the audience to gather all the political empathy she could get, and she did a fair job of convincing those who were already convinced, but she didn't make any of the necessary moves to convince anyone else that Senator Sessions had discouraged black voters in the past.
In the long term, Warren may have gotten some air time on CNN, but she barely used it. She also got herself silenced in the Congress until after Sessions nomination hearing. If I didn't know any better I'd think she was faking it. But that kind of soft tap on the wrist is a classic move that democrats do all the time. They call it snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and it's one of the Democrat Party's favorite moves.
So, what's going on here? Is it business as usual or is someone trying to pull something? It might be a little bit of both. It's important to remember that the Democrat Party pulled the rug out from under Bernie Sanders in favor of the less likely to win candidate in the 2016 primary election, and of course, the Republican candidate won as a result.
But why would the democrats want Trump to win the election? Here's the thing, democrat voters didn't want Trump to win, but voters and politicians are very different and have very different priorities and motivations. In fact, politicians aren't even allowed to do what they want. They have to do what they're told, just like how Senator Warren had to stop speaking when they told her to stop.
Even if they wanted to the Democrat Party could never give Democrat Voters what they want. And likewise, the Republican Party could never give Republican Voters what they want either. Who do the politicians work for? It's not "we the people" as we were all taught to believe in school. Everyone has a boss, and most bosses have another boss above them. Even the bosses at the top aren't allowed to make free decisions, they're bound by a charter or a contract or even an oath.
The politicians follow orders from only a few groups:
1 - Most political orders come from the "Party Leaders". And this is where the major disconnect happens. In America the politicians were supposed to work for the people, but they don't. Political parties exist for one purpose only, that is to get their own people elected so they can take over the government. I'm not being facetious, that's really how it works. Political parties are essentially the legal kind of overthrow attempts. And no political party's leadership is accountable to the public, they are only held accountable for promoting the party's agenda.
2 - Political orders also come from lobbyists. The lobbyists, believe it or not, are actually supposed to be there, but they were intended to be regular people advocating issues that affect everyone, not just the super wealthy corporations and special interests.
3 - Door number three gets a little strange. You see, nobody gets into higher politics if they're incompetent (unless someone else who's already in politics is helping them, usually for the purpose of using them as a political puppet). It takes real effort and intelligence to win debates and garnish the popular vote. Historically almost all points of failure in higher politics have come from corruption, not incompetence. Corrupt people just happen to get off the hook sometimes by appearing to be incompetent, so they all act dumb, that's how corrupt people get by. And they know that they're all corrupt, they don't need to send each other any blackmail letters to manipulate them, they all just secretly fear rocking the boat because they've got so far to fall. They even have special places in the Senate where cameras and microphones are banned. When politicians really want to get something done, they talk to each other behind closed doors, not on C-Span, and especially not on CNN or Twitter.
Part D - Enough About My Opinion, Here's What Others Are Saying
Here's some reading material:
The Politicians In Their Own Words via TheIntercept.com
Part E - To Sum Up This Rant
The two major political parties in the United States have been propping each other up to maintain their voter monopolies for a very long time. As a voter it's important to understand that everything in politics is scripted, just like professional wrestling. Politicians pretend to hate each other and fight like animals, but it's all just a carefully orchestrated show they put on, they're really just working for their party.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that anarchy is the answer to anything. But I do believe that it should never cost anywhere near $3.6 Trillion USD per year (roughly 21 percent of the entire nations GDP) for the government to do its job. Imagine if every service you use demanded 21% of all your worldly possessions just for doing their job. That couldn't ever work! In fact that sounds more like a cult than any kind of government service.
So, how did it get to be like this? Well, they say that if you give somebody a hammer then everything will look like a nail to them. So, what happens if you give someone a nearly limitless credit card and even add the ability to print infinite cash? Everything will look like a great big shopping spree to them, of course!
If all of this gives you a headache then I apologize. But really, who's to blame for that? Most of us went to public school, and the public school system is run by politicians!