Play Nice, Boys and Girls. Govern Like Men and Women.

Sometimes I wonder if there will ever be civility in Congress, let alone among the pundits, bloggers, and commentators. And then I bounce back to reality and remember my American History. I recently read The Devil’s Advocates, Greatest Closing Arguments in Criminal Law by Michael S. Lief and H. Mitchell Caldwell. The authors have compiled a number of cases and closing arguments they believe to have shaped our legal and judicial system. This book includes cases and their outcomes that have become an integral part of what we believe, from “every man’s house is his castle” to any of us wanting our Miranda rights. It shows the courage of John Adams’ defense of British soldiers accused of what Sam Adams and the press at the time called “The Boston Massacre.” It deals with the Randy Weaver defense after Ruby Ridge to Aaron Burr’s defense in his treason trial. It is the account of the latter that especially yanked my starry-eyed idealism back to the real world. Is incivility part of who we have always been? Is there any way for us to overcome this legacy? Have there never been times when two opposing political parties worked together for the greater good?

We all learned that Aaron Burr did shoot and kill Alexander Hamilton in a duel while serving as Thomas Jefferson’s vice-president. And, since this was illegal in New York, Burr’s home state, as well as in New Jersey, where the duel took place, he had to flee to the territories until things died down. He wasn’t tried for this and even finished out his term as Jefferson’s vice-president during Jefferson’s first term. But it was the election of 1800 that set two other adversaries—Federalist Hamilton and Democratic-Republican Jefferson—out to destroy Burr.

The election had ended inconclusively, and many of the Congressional Federalists were ready to support Burr, which would have given him the presidency because Burr, unlike Jefferson, had not been so absolute in his politics, had served as an officer in the Revolution, and was a New Englander. It was Burr’s long-time nemesis who set out to see that this never happened. Hamilton set out to be Burr’s undoing in word and in print. He asserted that Burr was “bankrupt beyond redemption except by the plunder of his country.” That he could “scarce name a discreet man of either party who does not think Mr. Burr a man unfit for the office of the president…..” He said that he was “selfish” without citing any facts to back up this claim or any of the others he had made. He proclaimed that Burr was only interested in “getting power by any means and keeping it by all means.”

Burr had made the election of Jefferson possible by pulling New York and New England into the corner of the Democratic-Republican ticket. Without it, Adams may very likely have had that second term. And while there is no evidence at all--conversely, evidence to the contrary--that Burr did anything to wrest the election from Jefferson in favor of himself, it took 35 ballots for Jefferson to win enough votes to be named president, largely because Hamilton’s inflammatory proclamations finally paid off. Even after Jefferson won, and despite Federalists saying Burr had not conspired with them at all, Jefferson set out deliberately to destroy Burr. With the help of his ally with the American Citizen newspaper, Burr was continually attacked. He was called “most immoral,” perfidious,” one of the "most unprincipled of men,” and “possessed of an evil of great magnitude.” This was inflammatory journalism as hot as that of any blogger or any pundit today and just as bare of facts to back up the claims.

Granted, Burr did not keep his cool as Hamilton and Jefferson’s media pals continued to cast aspersion after aspersion. Even though he had secured the office of the president for Jefferson, Jefferson was certain Burr had schemed and plotted because Burr did not concede immediately. The last straw for Burr occurred when a press release quoted Hamilton as seeing Burr as a “dangerous man….despicable….and one who ought not to be trusted with the reins of government.” When Burr asked for a denial, Hamilton simply said all was admissible in politics, a version of “all’s fair in love and war” and to Hamilton, in politics, too. Burr retaliated by saying that “political opposition cannot obliterate rules of honor” and that Hamilton seemed to have a will “to violate the courtesies in life.” He demanded an apology or a duel. Hamilton doomed his mortal self and Burr’s political future and reputation by accepting a duel as the better option. This is one historical example of a man’s stubborn refusal to admit his excesses resulting in a most unhappy ending.

Fast forward to 2009-2010, and we have reached a new level. In a recent poll, more than 24% of self-identified Republicans believe Obama wants terrorists to win. Another 33% think he may but are not sure. More than a third—36%--believe that he was not born in the United States and another 22% are not sure but think it may be true. Am I to take heart in the fact that a whopping 42% of those self-identified Republicans are certain that the President was indeed born here? Sorry, but the fact that 58% refuse to believe all the concrete evidence to the contrary shows a sentiment that I cannot begin to understand. I myself sometimes maintained that Bush 43 lived on another planet, but if asked, I would never have made that assertion in print or in a poll. A sizeable number believe that Barack Obama, son of a white woman and reared by white grandparents, hates white people, I suppose because Glenn Beck told them so?

And while I’m on Glenn Beck, a few days ago, he earnestly said that the President would not have “chosen”—that was the word he used—the name Barack if he wanted to identify with Americans. Does Beck mean to suggest that men named Ian or Sean are not true to America because their parents gave them Irish names? News flash, Glenn. Parents name their children; most of us don’t get to choose our names. Talk to Apple in a few years. This name thing is such an absurd comment, and it seems quite transparent what his real motivation is: to paint the President as an other, not one of us.


I have to believe that it is possible to disagree with a president’s or a political party’s policies without resorting to fear and hate mongering. It is always exciting to see a grassroots movement energize politics, but today, all too often, too many signs are over the top or even racist. What message does someone wish to convey with a placard of Obama in white face? Or attired in primitive African attire complete with a bone through his nose? When signs accuse him of being facist or socialist or even a communist sympathizer, it is evident that the carrier doesn’t know the definition of the term. And where is the logic in a sign that reads, “Keep the government out of my Medicare”? Medicare is a socialist program in that it is a single-payer, government-run health care system. The government is very much in Medicare and seniors love it.

And now I come to Michelle Bachmann, queen of the hysterical and all too frequently factually inaccurate defamatory remarks. She has claimed, “Really now, in Washington, I’m a foreign correspondent being held on enemy lines.” She decries that we now have a “gangster” government. What is her meaning there? I ask you. She wants her people “armed and dangerous on this issue of energy tax….” What is wrong with conversation, with an exchange of ideas without becoming “armed and dangerous” in the process? According to Bachmann, “Not all values are equal,” and by this, I have to assume that she believes hers are the superior values and that those of us who don’t believe as she does have fewer rights. I’m pretty sure that she will not find that in the Constitution she swore to uphold.

Her recent rant against the census was one of pure Bachmania. She decried the census saying, “If you fill out the census, you might end up in an internment camp. That’s how they rounded up the Japanese.” Again, may I refer her to the document to which she swore an oath? Article I, Section 3 deals with the states’ apportioned number of representatives saying, “The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.” Therefore, every ten years since that time, the federal government conducts a census of who lives in this country. According to the Encarta Dictionary of English, the word census means “an official count of a population carried out at set intervals.” Today, the census is very important to each state and district within that state. A state’s number of representatives is determined as is the amount of federal money available to that district and to that state. Why would Bachmann, whose district’s numbers depend on there being enough residents to be counted as a district within Minnesota, not want that census filled out? Baffling. Just baffling.

I suppose my starry-eyed wish that things will change--that politicians and pundits will begin to criticize policies not individuals-—may, at this time, be unrealistic. But I do remember those times when some in Congress had the courage we should expect from our elected officials. President Regan wanted a larger tax cut than the Democrats in Congress. They talked, each side gave a little, and a policy of tax cuts less than Regan wanted and more than the Democrats thought necessary was put in place. Governing occurred because men and women did their jobs.

I urge our politicians to frame their arguments by making a factual point, not a baseless and inflammatory assertion. Stop calling names. Think about your constituents more than your own reelection. Read the Constitution for the first time or again. Brush up on your American History. Think before you speak. Remember, what goes around comes around. You can’t expect people to cooperate with you if you are unwilling to cooperate with them. The word compromise implies that both sides have to give something in order to get anything. Play nice! Govern.

If each political party becomes so intent on all or nothing, nothing will happen. There is no escaping that reality.

Tea without History or Sympathy

By Karen Esham - September 14, 2009 at 10:35 pm EDT

Watching the Tea Party type demonstration on September 12 was a bit like falling down the proverbial rabbit hole. When those of us on the left protested anything during the Bush years--or ever for that matter--we were un-American. Now, fomenting revolution is a blessed occurrence, according to Fox News, Freedom works, and others. I only wish some of the protesters and right-wing commentators would brush up on their history once in a while. The Boston Tea Party was about taxation without representation. That meant no representation at all, not just representation for which you did not vote.

And why all this furor now? When Clinton left office, Bush was left with a surplus. It was his tax cuts and spending and unfunded mandates with his Republican Congress that created the deficit and left us in the economic mess in which we find ourselves. It was his Secretary of the Treasury who did not oversee the first outlay of TARP, etc. And now, because Barack Obama is president, the malcontents cry out, "Socialism is upon us!" or "Fascism is here!" or "Chairman Obama!" or "They're trying to make us like France!" (Again, a little reading of history might help them decide which movement is which and what they really mean, but hey! Why get factual at this point!)


I've always found it amusing to be called liberal elite by the Rush Limbaugh crowd. Liberal I am, but elite? In whose book? Technically, I am not even middle class any more. I am very well educated, but as a retired school teacher, what I make from my retirement and what I can make consulting here and there does not even put me into the middle class these days. But you know what? I happily pay my taxes. I know when I see an ambulance or a policeman, my taxes help pay for that. I use the public library. I drive on the highways, use public transportation, fly into airports, count on clean water and federally inspected meat and produce. I want my military well equipped and my veterans well cared for. I want programs like Head Start and free and reduced lunches available for students. I believe in help for the elderly and those who cannot help themselves. These things do not come free. My taxes help pay for them, and I pay them willingly. And I would happily pay "death taxes" if I only had enough money to will to my children, if only I would ever have that much to leave!

When the protesters were protesting about their taxes and government spending, they drove on those roads, gathered in those parks, were protected by police forces. Who do they think paid for those amenities and services?

As a liberal who has protested a thing or two in her day, I do support every person's right to protest, petition, and to speak. I do understand why many are upset with the role government has been forced to play because of the economic melt down caused by some Wall Street fat cats. I am also upset with the state of the economy, but I remember how we got here. Until we all learn to be less susceptible to the extremes and shrill voices on the right--or the left, for that matter--none of us will have the kind of country we want to have.


Tea baggers, wake up and smell the coffee. You live in a great country where you are permitted to protest, but while you do so, you are protected by those whose services are paid for by taxes. And please, when you use history, get your facts straight.