A panel of 3 federal judges is ordering Ohio to use state House and Senate maps already ruled unconstitutional by the state’s Supreme Court in a primary election that is set to happen on August 2.
The maps were approved by the Ohio Redistricting Commission during the third round of map drawing. The Supreme Court ruled that the maps, drawn by Republicans, unfairly favor the GOP.
The federal judges, in a 2-1 ruling, ordered that the state can only use the maps for this year’s elections.
The GOP victory came by way of a federal court ruling by judges who said they felt obligated to approve a map to ensure Ohio could hold its elections, even if that map was one the state Supreme Court had declared unconstitutional.
"Between the standoff among state officials and the delay in getting the case, our options were limited. So we chose the best of our bad options," the federal court wrote in an order that moved the legislative primary to Aug. 2. It was initially scheduled for May 3.
The court's ruling dealt a major blow to the state's efforts to reform its redistricting process.
(Jane C. Timm. “Ohio GOP wins favorable state voting maps, flouting reform attempts.” NBC News. May 27, 2022.)
Unfair redistricting maps that go against the Ohio Supreme Court's decision? Much-needed reform denied. What in the world? This is a prime example of the stagnation of politics and lawmakers inability to compromise.
It seems people these days don't want “fair” or “compromise” when it comes to most issues. The same can be said about politics. In the present state of division, politicians refuse to compromise to legislate important changes.
Pursuing the common good in a pluralist democracy is not possible without making compromises. The uncompromising mindset has come to dominate the task of governing. To begin to make compromise more feasible and the common good more attainable, we need to appreciate the distinctive value of compromise and recognize the misconceptions that stand in its way.
A common mistake is to assume that compromise requires finding the common ground on which all can agree. That undermines more realistic efforts to seek classic compromises, in which each party gains by sacrificing something valuable to the other, and together they serve the common good by improving upon the status quo.
Amy Gutman, American academic and diplomat who was the eighth president of the University of Pennsylvania, explains …
“Institutional reforms are desirable, but they, too, cannot get off the ground without the support of leaders and citizens who learn how and when to adopt a compromising mindset.
“Compromise is essential for cultivating the respect necessary for cooperation in democratic politics. It can in this way serve the common good without itself containing only common goods …
“If legislators themselves do not recognize the value of compromise, then voters need to use elections to show that they do. Voters must choose representatives who care enough about governing to take the risks of compromising. This does not mean accepting candidates who abandon their principles or forgo partisanship. But it does mean choosing candidates who are able to set aside their uncompromising mindsets long enough to craft the compromises necessary to improve on the status quo and serve the common good.”
(Amy Gutmann and Dennis F. Thompson. “Valuing Compromise for the Common Good Daedalus. A publication of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences. Spring 2013.)
Despite the the need for compromise, representatives from both parties often stubbornly refuse to sacrifice. Evidence of the same old partisan gap reveals that 66 percent of Democrats favored compromise, compared with 36 percent of Republicans who did.
On average, there is now a 36-percentage-point difference between Democrats and Republicans across important questions about subjects like gender, the environment, and the military.
(The Partisan Divide on Political Values Grows Even Wider.” Pew Research Center. October 05, 2017.)
Consider this hypothetical shared by Maggie Koerth, American science journalist and senior science editor at FiveThirtyEight …
“One man’s vandalism is another’s political dissent. Back in 2012, researchers from Kent State University presented survey respondents a hypothetical news story: A partisan political group has been caught swiping yard signs and defacing campaign ads.
“Then they asked the respondents to rate both the seriousness of crime (which, technically, it is) and how justifiable it was to break the rules. The overwhelming response: It’s not that big of a deal and it is reasonably justifiable – at least, as long as the party affiliation of the group doing the vandalism matched the affiliation of the person answering the question.
“If the other guys are doing it, well, by jove, Geoffrey, that is just not how things are done. Drawing squiggly mustaches upon an opponent’s face is fine for me … but not for thee.”
(Maggie Koerth. “Why Partisans Look At The Same Evidence On Ukraine And See Wildly Different Things.” FiveThirtyEight. October 03, 2019.)
Shankar Vedantam, a fellow at the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University and host/creator of Hidden Brain radio show distributed by NPR, says …
“At least at a cognitive level, people believe that getting stuff done requires compromise … but many voters also hate it if politicians from their own party should compromise with the other side. That could be considered giving in.
“Basically, people want compromise, but when they see compromise, they see it as caving in. The uncharitable view is that we want compromise so long as it's the other side that's compromising.
“I've talked with different psychologists about this, and one of the dominant opinions is that we believe that consistency and the ability to hold firm is a core trait of leadership, that great leaders are people who can look out into the horizon steer towards a distant point and not get sidetracked by all manner of differences.”
(Steve Inskeep and Shankar Vedantam. “Why Compromise Is A Bad Word In Politics.” NPR. March 13, 2012.)
This is called the hyper-individualistic norm. Vedantam says …
“In the United States we tend to see human behavior as driven by individuals. So psychologists have this term, they call it the 'fundamental attribution error.' And the fundamental attribution error says when I do something, when I look at my own behavior, I tend to see it in context. So I think of myself as being a safe driver, but if I'm driving fast today, it's because I'm running late for an appointment.
“But when I look at another person driving quickly, I say this person is a reckless driver, so I see it as being dispositional. And what Conway is suggesting is that Americans may have a tendency to see human behavior as more disposition or driven by the individual as opposed to driven by the context.”
(Steve Inskeep and Shankar Vedantam. “Why Compromise Is A Bad Word In Politics.” NPR. March 13, 2012.)
Ideological Polarization
Gun control, abortion, Ohio redistricting – people's increasing ideological polarization makes political compromise more difficult on these and so many other issues, What is the result? It's evident: the common good and the status quo go out the window in favor of serving partisan political positions. Stalemates beget inaction, and in the case of Ohio redistricting, the inaction also begets unconstitutional adherence.
How unfair and how detrimental to us all. Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, a liberal or a conservative – ultimately this will bite you in the ass. Our democracy is in the balance. Moisés Naím – Distinguished Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace listed in the British magazine Prospect as one of the world's leading thinkers, explains:
“A democracy needs political parties. We need permanent organizations that earn political power and govern, that are forced to articulate disparate interests and viewpoints, that can recruit and develop future government leaders and that monitor those already in power.”
(Moises Naim. “Why We Need Political Parties.” The New York Times. September 19, 2017.)
Consider these functions of parties that help explain their need:
Political parties serve an important function in holding the opposing party accountable.
Political parties ensure that the minorities have a voice and are not drowned out by the majorities will.
Political Parties help represent different ideas and beliefs among the people.
Ohioans Given “The Short Shrift”
The expression “short shrift” means “brief and unsympathetic treatment,” and “to make short shrift of means to dispose of quickly and unsympathetically.” The expression is first recorded in The Tragedy of King Richard the Third by William Shakespeare (1564-1616). In the work, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, later King Richard III, orders the execution of Lord Hastings, who has remained loyal to King Edward IV’s sons:
So, Ohio Republicans, we see your intentions very clearly. The conclusion that Republican members of the Ohio Redistricting Commission do not want Ohio voters to enjoy free and fair elections is unavoidable. They want to rig the game to enshrine their power and will stop at nothing to do exactly that. It's the old, proverbial short shrift.
An Associated Press review settled on one key finding: After hundreds of days of time with government statisticians, lawyers, judges and politicians, the public was the group given that short shrift. The public airing of the legislative and congressional maps combined included a scant 64 days for their input.
(Julie Carr Smyth. “Ohioans got short shrift as political map fight dragged on.” Associated Press. May 24, 2022.)
My Conclusion
Dirtbag GOP sensibility claims that Ohio must give your party an unfair majority. It flies in the face of the Ohio Supreme Court's demand that districts be in line with the Ohio Constitution – that voters overwhelmingly amended in 2015.
Nevertheless, that's what Ohio Republican Statehouse politicians confronted with the possibility they may have to finally actually compete in competitive elections did. They are trying to cheat their way into reelection with rigged districts.
Ohio Republicans have chosen to pass unconstitutional maps again and again and blatantly ignore the will of voters in order to protect their seats.
No compromise. No adherence. Only partisan cheating to win elections.
The Republican-dominated Ohio Redistricting Commission didn't even try. They simply tweaked the third set of maps and essentially re-submitted them. My conclusion: they are no longer listening to the will of the people. Instead, they voted for the GOP agenda and ignored what the majority of voters support. Thou leathern-jerkin, crystal-button, knot-pated, agatering, puke-stocking, caddis-garter, smooth-tongue, Spanish pouches! Short shrifted, for sure.
RATCLIFFE
Come, come, dispatch. The Duke would be
at
dinner.
Make a short shrift. He longs to see your head.
HASTINGS
O momentary grace of mortal men,
Which we more
hunt for than the grace of God!
Who builds his hope in air of your
good looks
Lives like a drunken sailor on a mast,
Ready with
every nod to tumble down
Into the fatal bowels of the deep
LOVELL
Come, come, dispatch. ’Tis bootless to exclaim.
HASTINGS
O bloody Richard! Miserable England,
I prophesy
the fearfull’st time to thee
That ever wretched age hath looked
upon.—
Come, lead me to the block. Bear him my head.
They
smile at me who shortly shall be dead.
From The Tragedy of King Richard the Third by William Shakespeare
As the bloody War of the Roses enters its final phase, Richard Duke of Gloucester rounds up everyone he deems an enemy, including his former accomplice Hastings. According to Richard's henchman Ratcliffe, Hastings's execution is holding up Richard's dinner. He advises the doomed Hastings to repent his sins as quickly as possible—to "make a short shrift"—so that his execution may proceed apace.
Hastings suddenly realizes that Richard's courtesies to him were all manipulations, and that his own efforts to seek the grace of powerful men like Edward IV and Richard were doomed to fail. The grace of men is a sometime thing, determined by self-interest; only the grace of God endures.
Some use "short shrift" as the equivalent of "quick work,” while others seem to mean "inadequate time." Both meanings indirectly stem from Shakespeare's. "Shrift" means "confession," from the verb "shrive"—a priest "shrives" someone by hearing confession and allotting a penance. We use the phrase very differently today: short shrift is now something you are "given" rather than something you "make" or perform.
(E notes. https://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/short-shrift.)
No comments:
Post a Comment