Who Can be Judge and Jury?
The messages in my inbox this week from various Democratic leaders here in Wisconsin had a common theme.
“There can be no healing if there is no accountability.” “We can’t have unity until we have honesty.” “We have to call out election lies … and hold accountable elected officials who amplify them.” The “three traitors” have to be removed.
The question is: Who will pass sentence? Who will be judge and jury? What group, which of our institutions, has the moral authority and the sufficient confidence of the people that their judgment would be accepted?
We are divided nation. Before the election we were all in near terror that the other side would win. There is no trust. We exist in different information bubbles. We don’t share the same reality. “Accountability” for one is “revenge” for the other.
The difference in perception is particularly acute when it comes to political acts. Partisan condemnation is dismissed by the opposition as “just politics”. Clinton’s approval ratings rose during his impeachment. The first impeachment of Trump had no traction. When no Republicans joined in the effort, it may have been wiser to drop it.
We have an ingrained suspicion of the exercise of political muscle for political ends and respond by defending our own. Here in Wisconsin, in the recall election of 2012, Scott Walker whose actions were being called into question by Democrats was re-elected with more votes than any previous candidate for governor of either party.
But back to the first question. Who will be judge and jury of political acts by political actors -- with such credibility that their decisions are generally accepted?
Most courts are generally reluctant to be dragged into the middle of political fights, in the justifiable fear that whatever their decision, it will be interpreted as political and their own reputation will be affected. In the ballot counting cases this election, news stories always included the political background of the judges. It helped credibility that judges across the country and in numerous cases ruled against what was perceived as “their” side.
Because there has been bad acting and punishment is called for, doesn’t mean people will listen to just anyone who sets themselves up as judge. One’s potential effectiveness should be considered. The emotional reactions expressed by the following, although in a very different context, are relevant.
“The night Mr. Jones was elected, I experienced the same conflicted emotions I have felt my whole life, as a Southerner: I love the South and I’m ashamed of it. But, most of all, I don’t like it when people who aren’t from the South criticize it. A friend from a blue state sent a text that she was glad Alabama had done the right thing in electing Doug Jones, and though I agreed, I bristled. She was from Minnesota. It’s kind of like criticizing your children: You can do it, but anyone else does it and it’s fighting words.”
It is so much more difficult to say “no” when boundaries of behavior are pushed by your own. If enough are willing, the restraint is effective as we saw with local officials who refused to change election results. Few, however, have the fortitude to face the immense pressure from those you have always been a part of. Accused of being a traitor, you become a pariah.
Who is left, who can judge? The voters and those who supported the offenders. They have to be judge and jury. They have to be the ones who punish. Losing the next election, being dismissed by your own, is the only effective wake-up call. Others will notice.
Recent actions and statements by the National Association of Manufacturers, the Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable and other business groups and leaders withdrawing support from those who attacked the legitimacy of this past election are significant. They go to the heart of the matter. Losing support. Losing votes.
As partisans in today’s context, our most effective role in defending democracy is not demanding those who undermine democracy be punished (unless, of course, they are our own). That will not be effective. We will not be heard.
We need a different attitude. A different tone. A different message. One that focuses on moving voters to do their own judging. We must make the case, not in anger, but with humility, by our actions as well as words, there are norms that must be maintained if we want to keep our experiment in self-government going for a while longer.
Douglas Kane is the author of "Our Politics: Reflections on Political Life" published in 2019 by Southern Illinois University Press
[subscribe2]