Anyway, I don't want to launch into a harangue about the failures of politicians and journalists today. Instead, I want to recognize some of the politicians and journalists who have repeatedly demonstrated a commitment to serve their country with honesty and integrity. Not all partisanship is bad. In fact, some partisanship can be a good thing, if handled properly. However, our country is currently suffering from a glut of bad partisanship, and it needs to stop. The politicians and journalists that I recognize today have taken a stand against such destructive partisanship. They have worked to improve public discourse in this country, often at some cost to themselves. These men and women have demonstrated a true commitment to public service. For all these reasons, I want to recognize them, and I want to thank them. I’ll start with the journalists.
Many journalists have demonstrated a willingness to challenge their own parties and to deal with their political opponents in an honest way. They have admitted the failures of their own party while acknowledging the successes of the opposing party. In doing so, they have rejected the destructive partisanship that is damaging our country. These journalists aren't perfect, of course, and they sometimes lapse into typical partisan boilerplate. But they have acted honorably toward their political opponents on a consistent basis, and for that they deserve recognition.
So, who are these journalists? Well, there are a number of them, but I would like to single out three for particular praise. They are David Brooks, Mike Murphy, and Michael Gerson. All three are Republicans. In fact, Mike Murphy has advised many Republican candidates (including John McCain), and Michael Gerson served as a speech writer for George W. Bush. None is a reporter in the usual sense. They are op-ed writers. Brooks writes for the New York Times, Murphy writes for Time, and Gerson writes for the Washington Post. (Brooks and Murphy also make regular appearances on Meet the Press.) I have seen these men defend the Republican Party with verve, but I have also seen them criticize the Republican Party and stand up for Democrats. They seem to be men of great integrity, and I want to recognize them both for their honesty and for their contributions to our country.
There are a number of other journalists that I would like to recognize. I haven't seen all of them take a stand against their own parties, but I have seen them refuse to engage in cheap political attacks on at least a number of occasions. Though many of them may be partisan, their partisanship seems to be healthy, not destructive. I sense that they are men and women of integrity, and I have learned from all of them. They are Eugene Robinson, E.J. Dionne, Joe Scarborough, Peggy Noonan, Dana Milbank, and Thomas Friedman. Let me be clear - I have seen a few of these journalists criticize their political opponents in ways that seemed lazy to me. But I have also seen all of them demonstrate fairness and integrity toward their political opponents numerous times. Robinson, Dionne, and Milbank write for the Washington Post. Friedman writes for the New York Times. Scarborough has a news show on MSNBC. Noonan was a speech writer for President Reagan and often appears as a guest on Meet the Press. She also writes for the Wall Street Journal.
Finally, I would like to honor some of the politicians who have consistently demonstrated bipartisanship, or at least rejected destructive partisanship. Unfortunately, Bob Gates is the only example that comes to mind, but I am sure that there are others. Dick Durbin seems like a decent chap, and Chuck Hegel seemed like a good guy too. I don't know much about either of them, but I do know that both have taken stands against their own parties, and that both have stood up for the political opposition. I have admired both Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice, and both have demonstrated a healthy bipartisanship on a number of occasions, but again, I don't know much about them.
Needless to say, I don’t agree with the views of all these politicians and journalists. I couldn’t, for they disagree on most issues themselves. Some of the men and women that I have mentioned are conservative Republicans; others are liberal Democrats. I haven’t singled out these men and women for the particular views they hold. Rather, I have singled them out for the way in which they defend their views, and in particular for the way they treat those who disagree with them. Americans may disagree on many issues, but our differences shouldn’t prevent us from respecting - even loving - one another. We are all Americans. More importantly, we are all human beings.
I am sure that there are many decent journalists and politicians whom I have omitted. However, my knowledge of politics is limited, and so is my knowledge of journalism. I would like to thank every public figure who has tried to serve their country faithfully. God bless America. In fact, God bless us all.
I like David Brooks too. He did some very good analysis of the Health Care legislation, as it was being written, and attempted to evaluate potential cost savings. He made some really interesting recommendations. Good guy.
ReplyDeleteI'd throw David Frum into the mix too. He's someone I don't always agree with, but ALWAYS temperate and fairminded. A "reform" Conservative, as we're sometimes called.
I agree that Brooks is a good guy. I have been reading him for a few years now, and I have the impression that he is an honest guy who knows what he thinks but who is also scrutinizing his beliefs and refining his views through open inquiry. I don't think that I have ever seen him to a cheap shot at anyone. And he is the first guy who will tell you what is wrong with his own party and what is right with the other party. It's hard not to admire a guy like that.
DeleteI'll be sure to check out David Frum. I have heard some good things about him. Thanks for the reference. By the way, I hope you write more about politics in the next few months. I'll be checking your blog.
I do admit that there is much going on in the political arena that I just do not understand. I did vote for Ron Paul in the primaries because he seemed like the only truly honest person running. But I'm not attached to anyone in all of this. A while back a friend of mine reminded me that we are ambassadors for Christ. Ambassadors come to a host nation and represent another one. Ambassadors do not vote in the country that they visit...they have no rights, they are guests, visitors, basically "just passing through".... and that (I find) is the perfect way to look at our situation. :)
ReplyDeleteI have a number of friends who are Paul supporters. I agree that he seemed like the only honest person running in the Republican primaries. I understand that politicians need to engage in spin to some extent, and I suppose that I am willing to cut them a little - though only a little - slack about it, but Paul always seemed to say exactly what was on his mind. Quite impressive.
DeleteBy the way, did you follow the Republican primaries when Pawlenty was still in it? Did he strike you as an honesty guy? I didn't get to hear him speak enough to form much of an opinion.
Your point about being ambassadors is helpful. I know that you've made that point before both here and on your own blog. I'm going to try to keep that in mind during the next few months.
My comment: "because he seemed like the only truly honest person running", should have the disclaimer added that I really didn't scrutinize all the players, but that I made that generality based on what I had seen before. The political process seems like slight of hand to me, and things are said "tongue in cheek" by the participants who seem to think that no one will remember or call them to task, or even if they get called out on something, that most people will be easily sidetracked by other "important issues".
DeleteIt's very tiresome for me. Before I was saved I was a liberal Democrat through and through. The after effect of realizing everything I had believed was false, caused me to turn to the Republican Party. Over time, I saw the flaws the forked tonguedness that went on there, and realized that both "parties" are worldly organizations. Over time I had to accept that this world is not my home, it's more of a temporary housing situation, and I have to know how to deal with lousy neighbors in a truly loving way, lol.
So to make a long answer shorter, I honestly didn't know what even the advertizement gimmicks for Pawlenty were, let alone the person.
But no matter who wins or loses, it will all turn out exactly as the Lord will have it do, and it will end up being for the good of those who truly love God. (Romans 8:28)Yay! and Halleluja! :)
I looked up Pawlenty (a little)...
Deletehttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/apr/12/fact-checking-tim-pawlentys-courage-stand/
The reason I like Ron Paul is because he says (and I believe him) that he is a Constitution defender. He takes alot of heat for defending the Constitution (which seems to have been made irrelevant?). Hope you can check out this article which Aztexan has linked to on his blog:
http://5ptsalt.com/2012/04/29/davy-crockett-vs-welfare/#more-13572
I read the article. To be honest, I didn't care for it much. I think that the current discussion on the political right of the role of the government in "charity" is unhelpful, to put it gracefully, and I didn't think that this article contributed in any way to the advancement of that discussion. It was interesting, though. I did a little research, and it seems that some historians doubt the authenticity of the speech, but it was still interesting.
Delete