July 25, 2017
I think it’s amazing how many newspaper editors and columnists call for bipartisanship while doing their best to get people stirred up in defense of their own particular party.
Instead of saying, “John Doe, R-Smallville, proposed building a skate park,” why don’t they say, “John Doe, representing Smallville, proposed building a skate park.”?
That way, people who suspect that any idea from someone with an “R” after his name is automatically a bad idea might actually think about it.
Conversely, if John Doe, representing Smallville, is caught with his hand in the till, people who will defend their party members to the death would be less tempted to think it’s a media smear campaign against their party and focus on the actual problem—John Doe is behaving badly.
Of course, stirring people up into defending or excoriating politicians by focusing on their party affiliation sells papers. Focusing on the ideas might actually shake up the status quo and get substantial progress accomplished.
So, how about it, editors and columnists? Instead of just stirring up the masses, can you shake up the status quo?