Censorship As Practiced By Us by Al Sikes

Congratulations to all of us. Or at least most of us. We have banned public affairs discussions (otherwise called politics) at virtually any gathering. What could be better: ostracizing those who want to exchange opinions on politics. Sort of an informal conspiracy to censor.

Now I will admit that some, maybe quite a few, have concluded that talking about tax and spend policy, for example, is a sport and to win you have to get in the most words. Or assert them more aggressively. Maybe even stomp around. My opinion is, don’t invite them to the gathering, but don’t let that threat stop having the discussion in the first place.

Perhaps I should pause, collect my thoughts and reexamine my premise. Does anyone want to talk about tax and spend policies or has cultural drivel and self-censorship deleted the enormous debt and how to pay it off from our collective minds? Or how to end the war in Iran?

It’s hard to think about a more self-defeating stance—leaving politics to the politicians. In the just concluded primary contest in New York City a slate of Democratic Socialist of America (DSA) candidates was elected. According to the Wall Street Journal, in the 7th Congressional District of New York “only 7.6% of the districts nearly 500,000 registered voters voted for the winner.” Representative democracy?

But, if all our talk beyond the workplace is about favorite movies, restaurants, and travel, what should we expect? We should never forget that the culture is upstream of politics and its influence moves emotions and reactions as forces of gravity prevail. If self-government is absent from our discussions, then those few who choose politics as their special interest will not be informed by the electorate. Because, the electorate will not be informed.

Let me back up, way back to 1863 and, in the case of this short speech, to November of that year. We know it as the Gettysburg address. Of the 272 words Lincoln spoke at the Gettysburg battlefield these words are the most memorable: “And, that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

Washington today is filled with people who get up every morning wondering how they can get their way or prevail for their client. They are good at the art of influence. They have large bank accounts to promote their causes. And the  vast majority of the targets, the elected, want nothing more than re-election. Slavishly so.

So what happens when politics becomes a private not public affair? When the menagerie takes over?

Widening the circle of voters should be a public affairs goal. Gerrymandering narrows the circle—legally marginalizing the other side. Yes, the other side, as if politics is an Ultimate Fighting Machine cage match.

In many States Independents are not allowed to vote in Party primaries even though Independents usually lean one way or another but want to avoid being labeled. Indeed we have a movement that calls itself No Labels. Whoa, what a brand name. Not freedom or constitutional or American party but No Labels.

I just finished voting in an election in Maryland. I voted at a fire station. It was administered and supervised by citizens of both political parties. It was procedural and the rules heavily weighed against any election day mischief.

But when social conformity insists we not talk about politics, I comply. Even though I often write about the politics of the day.

My mind goes back to law school. The married students, and I was one, studied in the law school library. The homes or apartments we could afford to rent were tiny and we were happy to study in a quite expansive library setting. As I remember, toward the end of our discussion about case law, we would talk about politics and didn’t bring the knives out. Unfortunately that is only a memory.