Observations©

By Donald S. Conkey

Date: March 3, 2011 - # 1109 - Title: Is ‘civility in politics’ possible? (750)

Civility in politics is possible – but not very likely! Politics is the means whereby free people express themselves and choose candidates for public office whose views of government are most closely in tune with their own views of government. In recent days I have been told by many that they refuse to watch the TV or read the paper because they are ‘turned off’ by the incivility of today’s politics – not only here in America but worldwide. I remind them they will not like the alternative to our form of government that allows confrontational political differences - a tyrannical government. 

            I remind them that what they would see if they watched the news on TV are people in many middle-eastern nations struggling to be free. In Libya millions have lived under a tyrant for nearly 40 years – and they, like all Americans, yearn to be free, and, as were the Colonists in 1775, are willing to die for that freedom. Other revolutions, like the French revolution of 1789, were not successful and they ended up being governed by Napoleon – a brutal dictator. We hope the Libyans do better.

            In Wisconsin, Ohio, New Jersey, and Indiana Americans are witnessing a different kind of politics in action – the politics of a free people openly expressing themselves, even with sit-ins, to bring to the attention of the nation their points of view. In these states ‘the people’ decided to change their elected leaders last November. They elected leaders who promised more fiscal responsibility and to ‘equalize’ the cost of government more equitably. Those who lost in November are now seeing how this change is affecting them – and they don’t like what they see - and are fighting back. It’s nasty but only in America could what we are witnessing in these states happen. We all see, those of us who watch the TV news, how Libyans are being killed by their dictator when they defy him. That’s nasty too. No debate. 

            As I have watched these protests, by both the unions and Tea Party members, I am reminded of the year the unions first gained a foothold in Michigan. It was in 1936 and the battle was between General Motors in Flint Michigan and the unions. GM had locked out the union strikers and had replaced the union members with what is termed ‘scabs,’ those willing to cross a picket line and take the place of a union member on strike. People on both sides died in those battles before Governor Murphy brought in the National Guard to separate the warring sides. I lived close by and watched this history in the making. This was the beginning of government backed unions.

            Michigan soon became a ‘union state,’ that is, anyone wanting to work in Michigan had to join the union. And this is the issue in these states today – they are all ‘union states.’ In 1949 I went to Detroit to work in the auto plants. I had to join the auto union in order to work – the pay was 75 cents an hour. And I still carry my union membership card in my wallet because honest unions have a place in the American society. But like any other entity, be they corporations, or political organizations, which become too large they can become corrupted by their own size, power and self-worth ego. That old saying is still true – power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts totally.

And many believe that is what has happened to the unions today. They believe the unions have become so powerful today they believe they can buy those they support in elections. But the same was true of corporations’ years ago. There has to be a middle road. Corporations’ needs workers and workers need jobs, jobs created by those industrialists who risk their fortunes to create jobs.

            Political conflicts between the 13 states in 1787 were responsible for the creation of America’s Constitution and Bill of Rights. Even after the Constitution was signed political conflicts lay ahead for the advocates of the new Constitution. It needed to be ratified – and there was great opposition to it. In several states one vote could have changed the outcome of a people ‘hoping’ to create a government where government was the people – a government Lincoln called “a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”