1/26/2020 Fact-based decision-making
I hope this Sunday afternoon includes some time of rest, relaxation, and enjoying whatever your day is focused on. I wanted to reach out in case you, like me, are struggling to understand and learn something from the impeachment trial. Here is one insight that came to me from a comment by Mara Liasson, an NPR reporter covering the trial, about the interview her colleague Mary Louise Kelly conducted with Secretary of State Pompeo.
Ms. Liasson stated:
"If you think that the Trump presidency is a stress test on democratic institutions, with its contempt for any fact-based institution, the FBI, the judiciary, the CIA, the press, and you are taking the pulse of these institutions to see how well they are holding up, I would suggest as a famous person once said, read the transcript. Read the transcript of Mary Louise's interview with Secretary Pompeo. It is a gold-standard example of how journalism - professional, polite journalism - operates without fear or favor. And it's an example of how the First Amendment is holding up just fine, even under pressure."
Ms. Liasson's comments are part of this interview:
https://www.npr.org/2020/01/26/799629234/sunday-politics
The full interview conducted by Ms. Kelly with the Secretary of State can be accessed here:
https://www.npr.org/2020/01/25/799470712/encore-nprs-full-interview-with-secretary-of-state-mike-pompeo
In addition to the reassurance that seasoned reporters continue to do their work "without fear or favor," the phrase "contempt for any fact-based institution" stands out.
This, I believe, is one underlying conflict we witness in the impeachment trial: the conflict between fact-based, evidence-based decision making, and the exercise of pure power for its own sake.
It might be one reason why Republican senators do not support new witnesses or evidence, not even to give them more political cover for voting against removing the president. The risk of allowing the voting public to see and hear additional evidence is higher, in their calculation, than the risk of being accused of holding an illegitimate trial. They could easily vote to hear from witnesses, and then vote against removing the president anyway. But that would give credence to the notion of facts, evidence, and truth. And this presidency is not about convincing us of the truth of an alternative set of facts and evidence; it is about making us all so cynical - or afraid - that we give up trying to determine the truth at all.
There is one more democratic institution that can show up with powerful resiliency: the voting public. It is hard to imagine that the Senate will have the votes to remove the president. The final decision on this administration and all its policy actions, executive orders, and foreign entanglements will be in the hands of voters in November.
So, we renew our efforts to "hold up" the fact-based orientation that is the heart of a thriving democracy. We make space for good-faith discussion with fellow informed, engaged community members, whether or not we agree on everything. We insist on the importance of returning to the evidence, bringing all relevant evidence to light, considering it carefully, and allowing facts to hold primacy over opinion.
And, we bring this commitment to fact-based decisions to our voting practice, in primaries, caucuses, and general elections.
As always, I send this with loving gratitude for your companionship as we navigate these challenging times.
Liz