Article by Peter Nichols in "The American Thinker":
Is
there a political virtue of ‘impartiality”? If so, then with regard to
what should we be impartial? Could impartiality as to our country’s
fate ever be right?
Distinguished author and scholar Joseph Epstein
says that impartiality is what we need today. He presents evidence of
his own: he has voted for both Democratic and Republican presidential
candidates and in 2016 cast his ballot for someone other than Donald
Trump or Hillary Clinton.
By
“impartiality,” Mr. Epstein explains, he means “disinterestedness.”
This is “to be above personal interest in your views and actions, even
your emotions.” But Epstein does not mean personal pecuniary interest,
by all indication, nor the acquisition of political power, since he
refers to private persons such as himself. What he means by
“impartiality” or “disinterestedness” is indifference to party or
ideological affiliation. He means freedom from the passion of political
partisanship. Therefore, being open to meritorious arguments from
either side is impartiality.
Senator
Daniel Patrick Moynihan exemplified impartiality, according to Epstein.
He worked for administrations of both parties (Kennedy and Nixon), and
as a Democratic senator once disagreed with President Clinton on health
care. He was so admirable a politician as to be the last with whom
Epstein would care to have lunch. Luncheons among the genuinely
impartial are, of course, time-consuming affairs, it being impossible to
determine what looks good on the menu without assiduous scrutiny,
preceded by the dismissal of predilections.
All
of this brings us to Donald Trump, the arch-defiler of impartiality.
He is not that, however, because of his official actions. Epstein
actually confers mild praise on Trump’s policies (except for “his
abandonment of the Kurds”). Epstein, furthermore, rebukes those
succumbing to “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” His response to these
persons, who both loathe Trump and fail to see “such clearly dubious
characters as Adam Schiff and Jerrold Nadler” for what they are, is that
the President, is “essentially a comic figure.” He is ludicrous,
rather than sinister.
Trump
is inimical to “impartiality,” in Epstein’s view, because of the way he
talks. “His every utterance is designed to make you take a stand, to
love him or loathe him.” He makes it “all but impossible to remain
politically impartial.” He causes dissension between friends and family
members. “You may agree with his policies, but his braggadocio and
egotism will give you second thoughts.”
This
is the President’s censorable characteristic: his manner of speech.
And yet it amusing, because Trump “uses confidence to cover ignorance
and insult to combat criticism, and is touchier than a fresh burn.” He
is ludicrous, but “complicating this comic view of Trump” are his policy
successes. It is, perhaps, a little startling that the successful
economic and foreign policy with which Epstein credits the President
should merely qualify Epstein’s view of Trump’s deportment. We might
have expected it to be the other way around -- the conduct of the
nation’s affairs is surely primary, even if complicated by a style of
rhetoric. But then, confidence, touchiness, braggadocio, and egotism do
not suggest impartiality, and that, we recall, is the important thing.
Let
us, however, consider impartiality. It is the primary attribute of a
judge. A judge looks to the past -- what did or did not occur, as
revealed by the evidence. Cf., Aristotle, Rhetoric, 1358b et seq. Guilt or innocence, liability or the absence of same are his concerns, not what is advantageous or sound policy. Fiat justitia ruat coelom
(“Let justice be done though the heavens fall.”) is the maxim of
jurisprudence. Between the possible alternative outcomes of a case the
judge is impartial -- only the evidence and the law decide, not the
judge’s preference for a particular outcome, not his affinity or
disaffinity for either of the litigants. A trial judge is indifferent
to the result, provided that it is attained by adherence to a mandated
procedure.
Politics,
on the other hand, looks forward. It is concerned with what is
advantageous or disadvantageous for the nation -- in extreme
circumstances, for what preserves or destroys it. It requires a certain
clear-sightedness, sometimes called practical wisdom, undergirded by a
moral quality called moderation. It is that quality which, indeed,
makes possible contemplation of the merit even in the arguments of one’s
adversary, if such merit exists.
Indifference
to the result in any portentous political controversy, on the other
hand, can never denote virtue. The love of one’s country and its
constitution render impossible disinterested contemplation of their
survival or demise. Furthermore, getting the citizens to take a side in
issues affecting the wellbeing of the nation inheres in statesmanship.
What does Epstein think Lincoln was doing with respect to the expansion
of slavery during the years culminating in his presidency?
Epstein
looks askance upon politics. It “does not generally bring out the best
in everybody.” Politics, it seems, entails conflict. “It narrows the
lens of understanding, sets people against one another, is more
interested in victory than truth.” He cites Aristotle (the Ethics)
for the proposition that ‘the end of politics is happiness or the good
life” and laments that it has brought neither to our people “in recent
times.” What we lack is “impartiality[,]…the only hope for negotiating
the personal traps and public potholes of politics.”
Epstein must also be aware of Aristotle’s more famous observation from the Politics
that man is a political animal, whose perfection depends upon living in
a country. The country is formed with certain moral precepts that
comprise its “regime” (constitution, system of government, or way of
life). Being human, we must have politics.
The
American system of government is representative republicanism, with
protection of the rights of the minority. It is defined in the
Constitution and judicial decisions interpreting it, and is now in
mortal danger.
There
is an attempt to overturn the result of the last presidential election
by impeachment, on the most spurious grounds and by the most unfair of
procedures. The Speaker of the House now wishes to control the manner
of trial in the Senate. There was apparently a conspiracy among federal
law enforcement and intelligence officials to thwart and incriminate
the successful presidential candidate in the 2016 election. There is an
overt campaign to overturn the first two Amendments contained in the
Bill of Rights, to do away with the Electoral College, to end equal
representation of the states in the Senate, and to eviscerate the
independence of the judiciary by packing the Supreme Court. Physical
intimidation against conservative journalists, members of the Trump
Administration, and those charged with enforcing the immigration laws is
commonplace and tolerated by local authorities.
These
are not potholes, and no defender of American constitutionalism can be
impartial as to their effect. Those who make a display of their
detachment from the struggle that now grips America and proclaim their
scrupulous consistency in condemning both sides engage in an (apparently
inadvertent) self-parody. Let them spread their plumage and parade
around after the danger of national ruin is past.
