ILNews

Editorial: In this war of words, will anyone win?

Editorial Indiana Lawyer
March 30, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Editorial

At more than 30 days and counting, at least at Indiana Lawyer deadline, we’re not sure what will cause the Democrats elected to the Indiana House of Representatives to return to their posts at the Statehouse.

There’s enough blame to go around for everyone in the legislative process, voters included, to have a share. Yes, we said voters. After all, we keep electing the majority of this cast of characters over and over again. It’s developed into an insane process, and a popular definition of insanity is when one keeps doing the same thing over and over hoping for a different outcome.

We’re sure the heated rhetoric isn’t helping at all. Note this example from the state leader of the Republican Party on the 31-day mark of the Democrats’ absence from the House:

“This is now your legacy, your footnote of failure.

“With your actions over the past 31 days – obstructing important pieces of legislation, like passing a balanced budget, cost of living adjustments for retired state employees and your constitutional duty on redistricting – you’ve branded the Democratic Party in Indiana far better than anything we could do,” said Indiana State Republican Party Chair Eric Holcomb.

We’re sure that only added fuel to the fire and increased the tensions that precipitated the Democrats leaving the state in the first place. Will such statements score points among longtime mainline party members? Certainly. Secure their continued support, with votes and monetary contributions? Most likely.

The other party hasn’t been particularly angelic in the rhetoric department, either. Calling Gov. Mitch Daniels’ plan to reform public education an attempt to “destroy” it was far from an attempt to curtail the argument. State Rep. Pat Bauer, D-South Bend, isn’t helping with statements like these: “Until the schemes to dismantle public education are resolved, we will continue to fight for the best possible education for Hoosier children.”

Last time we checked, dismantling public education wasn’t big on the Republicans list of things to do this session. But will statements like these from Bauer score points among longtime, mainline party members? Certainly. Secure their continued support, with votes and monetary contributions? Most likely.

We’ve heard of “No Labels,” (nolabels.org) which purports to foster a movement in which citizens who hail from a variety of political vantage points can put aside their political differences and come to consensus on some of the truly critical issues we face across the country.

We’d like to be a little less cynical and believe that a nation which fostered the Tea Party movement, a movement that sprung up quickly in response to the 2008 election cycle, can give attention to ideas such as these. It sounds remarkably sane: Put aside one’s petty political posturing and search with political opponents in an effort to find common ground to work on common problems. That would have to be much more efficient than the partisan stalemates that have become the order of the day at the state and national level.

At this writing, Indiana’s House Democrats are no closer to coming back to Indianapolis than they were when they left Indiana last month.

But also at this writing, we are one step closer to having an amendment that could make discrimination a part of our state’s constitution.

We’d like to introduce our legislators to the No Labels movement, but recognize that more than mere labels would have to be put aside in order for it to be effective.

We’re going to have to work on our cynicism before we can get our hopes up for that.•

--------------------

Opinions: Readers may offer opinions concerning Indiana Lawyer stories and other legal issues. Readers may respond immediately by viewing the “submissions” section on our website: www.theindianalawyer.com. We reserve the right to edit letters for space requirements and to reproduce letters on the IL website and online databases. Direct letters to editor Rebecca Collier at rcollier@ibj.com or 41 E. Washington St., Suite 200, Indianapolis, IN 46204.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The ADA acts as a tax upon all for the benefit of a few. And, most importantly, the many have no individual say in whether they pay the tax. Those with handicaps suffered in military service should get a pass, but those who are handicapped by accident or birth do NOT deserve that pass. The drivel about "equal access" is spurious because the handicapped HAVE equal access, they just can't effectively use it. That is their problem, not society's. The burden to remediate should be that of those who seek the benefit of some social, constructional, or dimensional change, NOT society generally. Everybody wants to socialize the costs and concentrate the benefits of government intrusion so that they benefit and largely avoid the costs. This simply maintains the constant push to the slop trough, and explains, in part, why the nation is 20 trillion dollars in the hole.

  2. Hey 2 psychs is never enough, since it is statistically unlikely that three will ever agree on anything! New study admits this pseudo science is about as scientifically valid as astrology ... done by via fortune cookie ....John Ioannidis, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, said the study was impressive and that its results had been eagerly awaited by the scientific community. “Sadly, the picture it paints - a 64% failure rate even among papers published in the best journals in the field - is not very nice about the current status of psychological science in general, and for fields like social psychology it is just devastating,” he said. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

  3. Indianapolis Bar Association President John Trimble and I are on the same page, but it is a very large page with plenty of room for others to join us. As my final Res Gestae article will express in more detail in a few days, the Great Recession hastened a fundamental and permanent sea change for the global legal service profession. Every state bar is facing the same existential questions that thrust the medical profession into national healthcare reform debates. The bench, bar, and law schools must comprehensively reconsider how we define the practice of law and what it means to access justice. If the three principals of the legal service profession do not recast the vision of their roles and responsibilities soon, the marketplace will dictate those roles and responsibilities without regard for the public interests that the legal profession professes to serve.

  4. I have met some highly placed bureaucrats who vehemently disagree, Mr. Smith. This is not your father's time in America. Some ideas are just too politically incorrect too allow spoken, says those who watch over us for the good of their concept of order.

  5. Lets talk about this without forgetting that Lawyers, too, have FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION

ADVERTISEMENT