Bickering

Say what you mean and mean what you say.

   Politicians are fond of "walking back" comments that don't sit well with the public and snap back to bite them. They quickly use variations on phrases like, "What I really meant was ..." as a way to squeeze out from under a pile of criticism.
   Typical response from cynical journalists, while seldom spoken, comes in a attitude that says, "Journalism's job is to report what you say. If you meant something else, you should have said so. It's not our job to save your butt from your own foolishness."
   However, reporter's almost never say this. Instead, the embarrassed politician attacks the media. Someday, perhaps, politicians will learn that a reporter's job is to do just that: report what is said and done.
   Meanwhile, the most fun part of a reporter's job is to describe the bickering that goes on during political campaigning.
   However, bickering is a tradition of long standing in America, going all the way back to the Constitutional Convention, held in Philadelphia in 1787. The meetings were held in secret so the delegates could thrash out competing ideas and attitudes in an effort to reach a compromise.
   In fact, many important concepts were debated so much that they were held back, to be voted on later. Meanwhile, the founders prepared a document that could be voted on immediately, so that a well functioning government could get under way. That's called compromise, and the delayed concepts were added soon thereafter as amendments. Those delayed concepts are called the first ten amendments, also known as the Bill of Rights.

   But for all the bickering, the founders succeeded in their compromising, and the result was the Constitution, which still governs the way the country behaves today. And in general, they said what they meant and meant what they said, so that anyone reading the Constitution would easily understand and accept the wording.
   At least, that was the intention. These days, it seems the intensity of the political bickering is reaching a stage where the Constitution itself may be in danger.
   In fact, some parts of the founding document are ignored entirely. For example, consider the emphasis on religion in America, spoken of at great length by those who feel their way is the right way, and all others are demonized and should be banned.
   But the Constitution itself deals with that issue in two places, once in the main body of the document, Article Six, and then in the First Amendment. "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States," Constitution states. Further, the First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, or abridging the free exercise thereof."
   Why were these and other provisions written into the Constitution in the first place? Because in Britain at the time, there was a religious test to hold office. Only members of the Established Church of England were eligible to hold office, or to attend the major universities that trained physicians, among other things.
   Many folks had come to America just to escape such discrimination, including the Puritans of New England and the Catholics who settled in Maryland.
   Another important example of a delayed provision is Amendment Three, which stipulates that "no soldier shall be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."
   To modern readers, that's a curious provision, until they realize that it was common practice for the military to take up residence anywhere they chose, whether the people approved or not.
   The Fourth Amendment, which deals with unwarranted search and seizure, also overturns and prohibits a common practice of the British government during the Colonial Era, as officials undertook searches of persons, houses, papers and personal effects without a court approved warrant.
  The point of these provisions in the Constitution was not only to prescribe how a government can and should function, but also to prohibit things that the government must not do.

   Despite the vehement debating at the convention, there was enough agreement on core issues, often wrought through hard compromise, that a workable Constitution was written and established.
   That Constitution has served the nation well since it took effect in 1789. There are some today, however, who choose to ignore certain provisions they don't agree with, and even act in violation of others, promising to unilaterally make changes in government without the consent of the governed.
   And those who remember the phrasing of the Declaration of Independence know that governments derive their just powers "from the consent of the governed." Moreover, while people have the right to change governments, this should not be done "for light and transient causes."
   However, "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that they declare the causes" for the attempt to change.
   In other words, where's the evidence?
   Currently, many things are being said that endanger the future of the American system. Accusations are hurled without evidence or proof, and warnings are sounded that suggest violence unless others agree with the accuser.
   For all the bickering of delegates to Philadelphia in 1787, there was an underlying feeling that compromise was essential to success.
   For many months now, the battle cry has been "No compromise!" And the bigger danger to America is that this same recalcitrant whining demand will continue long after Election Day.