One of the driving political
theories that animates this blog is what I call Shawkey's Maxim:
that the further one is away from the seat(s) of power the more
necessary it is to have one's stated political beliefs made real.
The inverse: the
closer to the seat(s) of power one is, the less necessary it is to
have one's stated political beliefs made real. This maxim was discovered
after observing time after time how people up and down the ladder
of power fought political battles, and reacted to losing them.
Those
furthest from the seats of power were more distraught during the battle
and after a loss. Those moving up toward the ultimate seats and occupying
lesser seats themselves were less distraught but still more distraught
then those in the highest seats of power.
This
maxim mainly concerns itself with three groups of people. The first
group - the furthest from the seat(s) of power - is the grass roots
voter or activist. The second group - occupying lesser seats of power
but still holding much power - are the talk show hosts, writers and
political commentators. The third group's members, holding the most
power individually, but at the very least collectively, are the political
office holders.
The
reason this maxim is true, I hold, is that the second and third groups
gain certain benefits from simply being involved in the play of politics:
income, authority and power, visibility and recognition. The first
group - the grass roots voter and activist- must solely hope for a
win but be prepared to suffer with a loss.
The
maxim can best be demonstrated by taking one issue on today's political
landscape - the desire to pass a Constitutional Amendment to preserve
marriage as between one man and one woman only.
Of the
three groups mentioned above - the voter/activist; the talk show hosts,
writers and commentators; and the political office holders - which
group most desires the Constitutional Amendment to preserve marriage
as only between a man and a woman. The answer is the voter/activist.
One can almost
sense the relief coming out of Washington over the failure to get
the necessary votes to send the Amendment to the States. It is almost
as if they were saying, "Well, we tried and failed. Now let's
move on." Many talk show hosts have already moved on. The voter/activist
is left with another punch in the gut.
Just
what is it that can leave a US Senator not losing sleep after not
voting to pass the Marriage Amendment when he or she
knows more than 30 states already passed a similar state Initiative
or Amendment. There were Senators who directly voted against the wishes
of their own state. It is because they are safe and content with their
position, gaining benefits from just occupying the seat of power.
Who needs to trouble oneself with such messy subjects when one is
a part of the world's greatest deliberative body?
Why the lack of follow-up
from many major commentators and talk show hosts? They know their
listeners have this Amendment at the top of their list. Is it because
they are not interested in pushing the President out of his comfort
zone? Are they content with the benefits of their jobs and the income
and position they derive? Are they busy enough with the next project,
book or thought?
(There are exceptions.
Sean Hannity cared as much as any listener that Terri Schiavo be saved.
Rush Limbaugh, sometimes caught in the maxim, can be ferocious in
defending certain turf against all, even the President. Hugh Hewitt
has been in the lead - and relentless - in getting the Senate to vote
to end the filibuster of judges.)
Let
the gentle reader carry this maxim around for the next few days while
one listens to one's favorite talk show hosts or one reads one's favorite
commentary or blogs. Discern if this maxim isn't true time and time
again. Please email me with your thoughts. And click here
for further examples as we enter them.
