.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
Heavy-Handed Politics

"€œGod willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world
without the United States and Zionism."€ -- Iran President Ahmadi-Nejad

Monday, March 19, 2007

IT'S ALL TOO CONFUSING

“From the Iraq war to Hurricane Katrina, to the ‘global warming crisis,’ little if any of the ongoing discussion is being conducted between two parties with honest concerns for the best avenue by which to address the situation. Instead, the Left invents outlandish accusations, which are then incessantly echoed by its media lackeys. Those on the Right attempt to refute and debunk these accusations with facts, but often find their arguments falling on deaf ears. Eventually, the issue at hand becomes entangled in vast concocted webs of conspiracy and malfeasance, all of George Bush’s doing, of course. As a result of this process, no public interest is served. Worse yet, those who have access to the truth, and who really want the conversation to revert back to a discussion of the facts, find themselves increasingly frustrated and marginalized as the contest is diverted from truth to the realm of political horse races.” —Christopher Adamo

2 Comments:

  • Good article!

    Is it just me or has the proliferation of trial lawyers into politics had a lot to do with this?

    Think about the legitimate mindset of trial lawyers. They are specifically not driven by a quest for the truth. In fact, if the truth is that their client is guilty, they do not want to know it least they be ethically and legally barred from defending them as not guilty.

    Nor do they have to prove that their client is innocent. They need only establish that there is reasonable doubt as to their clients guilt. This is done by focusing on any and all exculpatory evidence or testimony while challenging the veracity of the prosecutions evidence and testimony. Alternative but unsubstantiated explanations for facts in evidence are allowed and expert witnesses are brought in to counter the conclusions of those of the prosecution. If it works, the trial lawyer has done his job well. Even if that means that a guilty person walks free, no aversion devolves to the lawyer. It is not the defense lawyers fault that a guilty man has been released back into society. Instead, that would be the fault of ‘the system’. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution and the defense is encouraged to do everything it legally can to prevent the prosecution from winning the case.

    This is all as it should be; even as it must be. It is certainly the way I would want my lawyer to conduct my case should I ever find myself in need of legal defense.

    But now translate that mindset into politics. You have a professionally obliged disinterest if not absolute disregard for the truth. The goal is to establish reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt as to the good intentions and/or desirable outcome of your sides conduct and policies as opposed to those of the opposition. In politics, this is called spin. If it works, i.e. your side wins the election, you have done your job well. Even if that means that bad politicians and/or bad policies result. That is the way ‘the system’ works. It just starts the next spin cycle and the truth has deliberately played no part in it. Those who conduct themselves in this manner feel no qualms about doing so. They are, in fact, proud of it. That is the way they were trained and encouraged to act. They are, after all, trial lawyers and as such they view their party, not the country, as their client

    I do not suggest that trial lawyers not be allowed to enter politics. That would be unconstitutional. I just recommend that we not easily vote for them. They bring a mindset into elected office that is at odds with good government and serving the people well.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:19 PM  

  • I have to agree with you Anotmo.

    They (lawyers) are not driven by right or wrong, only what's legal versus what's illegal. And even at that they will argue and defend that which they themselves believe to be wrong or illegal.

    I would be curious to see what percentage of all Congressmen/women in both houses are/were lawyers or at minimum graduated with a law degree. Ex-congressman Harold Ford Jr is an example (I'm sure there must be others) of someone who went straight on through school and onto law school, graduated, failed the bar exam, ran for office, and won on his family name.

    He's had no real life experiences to draw upon, never had to work, not even as a lawyer, but his law degree somehow qualified him to be a Congressman.

    I know the percentage of lawyers or law school grads who are in office must be very high. We really do need a broader representation in Congress from people in all walks of life.

    I do very much agree with your views on how "lawyer-think" translates in the political sphere and your, 'They are, after all, trial lawyers and as such they view their party, not the country, as their client,' is dead on in my opinion.

    By Blogger HeavyHanded, at 3:55 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home