NEW CASTLE —
Who guards the guardians?
It’s a question that dates back at least to ancient Rome. It refers to the notion that someone ought to be keeping an eye on the folks who wield power in society.
To some extent, it’s the role of the press to guard the guardians (i.e., politicians) in our society. But to a larger degree, that task ultimately falls upon the citizens themselves.
I often tell people that the only thing newspapers really do is print words. It’s up to others to read those words and respond. The most significant news story in the world is useless if no one bothers to read or react to it.
In a democratic society, it’s essential that citizens serve as the guards of the guardians, demanding proper conduct. Otherwise, government can deteriorate into dictatorship.
Or it can unravel into an incompetent mess. Sort of what we have now.
In the field of journalism — along with certain nonprofit or public interest organizations — a new line of work has arisen related to politics. It’s called the fact checker.
It has become a mini industry, as statements by political candidates and campaign commercials are scrutinized for their content in terms of accuracy. Not surprisingly, fact checkers find fault with what politicians of all stripes are telling the American people.
It’s not that these politicians are lying — at least not blatantly so. Instead, they massage the truth, put their own spin on reality or leave out key details the public ought to know.
Considering all the charges and counter charges made in the current presidential campaign — particularly in terms of who’s giving the American people the straight story — you would think that fact checkers would be warmly welcomed by the voters looking for clarity and accuracy.
But surveys suggest that’s not the case. Information produced by fact checkers seems to have little impact on the electorate. And politicians are taking notice.
This is obvious when you look at the criticisms fact checkers make about assorted campaign ads. Often, these ads are dismantled by fact checkers, but the campaigns continue to run them. The declarations of fact checkers are dismissed as inconsequential.
Why? There are a couple of possibilities. One is that voters are every bit as partisan as the candidates. They don’t want nuance or insight. They merely want confirmation of their ideological views and they reject everything else.
Another is that with fact checkers serving to discredit both parties, no one’s left to believe in. When everybody’s blowing smoke in your face, how do you locate an honest candidate?
Unfortunately, this tainted political environment allows the distortions to persist. The politicians have no incentive to tell the truth if the voters are throwing up their hands in defeat.
So neither party will tell you hard, ugly decisions have to be made with the federal budget, mainly because you don’t want to hear that. Instead, voters will latch on to ideologically pleasing rhetoric that implies the nation’s fiscal problems can be resolved with a few relatively painless adjustments and perhaps a little pixie dust.
The real fact is that Republicans and Democrats both are letting this nation down. And the American people are allowing it to happen.
Mitchel Olszak
Related Photos
-
Mitchel Olszak, Dear Reader
Discussion
Mitchel Olszak: Americans fail to demand better of politicians
- Mitchel Olszak
-
-
Mitchel Olszak: Snooping threat to the free press
In “All the President’s Men,” reporter Bob Woodward conducts late-night meetings with a source in a parking garage. That source, Deep Throat (later revealed to be high-ranking FBI official Mark Felt), was worried that he would be exposed as a tipster in the Watergate scandal.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Toomey takes a chance on guns
How does a conservative Republican senator representing a state with a Democratic majority protect himself politically? One way is to take positions that tend to straddle the nation’s ideological fence.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Terrorists strive to create fear
The finish line of a road race serves as the division between one world and another. Ahead of the finish line, there is structure and discipline, with attention paid to the runners as they cross over. Spectators are kept back, mainly to avoid interfering with the participants — and perhaps to keep them from being trampled.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Kelly, allies battle arms treaty
Supporters of the right to bear arms have a champion in Congressman Mike Kelly. The federal lawmaker, whose district includes most of Lawrence County, has been making waves with his criticism of the Obama administration and its support for the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
-
Mitchel Olszak: I like beer, so I’m watching our state closely
I like beer. More to the point, I like good beer. In my younger days, just about any swill would do. But with the passage of time, sophistication and exposure to the possibilities, my interests in beer have sharpened and matured.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Political lessons from distant past hold value today
If you want to gain an appreciation for great thinkers, read some of history’s major political philosophies. Here you will find the works of Plato, Machiavelli, Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, St. Augustine and many others. They explored difficult social issues and offered serious insight.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Do the emotional centers of the brain guide our politics?
People who hold specific political points of view like to think their positions are based on serious analysis. They view their given ideologies as careful conclusions reached through assessing the world around them and examining how things work. Thus, liberals and conservatives both manage to claim the intellectual and ethical high ground.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Will GOP survive current divisions?
Somebody asked me the other day if I thought the Republican Party was about to split apart. I said no. It was an assessment based on history. Creating a new political party in America is a challenging process. They occasionally crop up, but they don’t last.
-
Mitchel Olszak: History as a matter of chance
History is full of pivotal moments. What if Socrates had decided against drinking that hemlock? What if Gutenberg hadn’t developed his printing press? What if Washington’s army failed to survive the winter at Valley Forge? What if Edison gave up on inventing the light bulb?
-
Mitchel Olszak: Pennsylvanians shouldn’t be fooled by electoral hijinks
Back in the 2000 presidential election, Americans received a civics lesson of sorts. Much of it involved obscure terms such as hanging and dimpled chads, as well as butterfly ballots. All of this, of course, came courtesy of Florida, whose clumsy election efforts produced an extended period of uncertainty in the presidential contest between George W. Bush and Al Gore.
- More Mitchel Olszak Headlines
-
