"Finding virtues in successful politicians seemed to me the function of their swarms of willing [cronies]; it was the business of a journalist, as I conceived it, to stand in permanent Opposition." (H.L. Mencken, Baltimore Evening Sun)

Time for another bedtime story, children.

Once upon a time in America, there lived in the newsrooms of our country several talented people (yes, there were both men and women) whose principle art was pointing out the fallacies, illogical thought and just plain wrong-headedness of their fellow Americans. They did this invaluable "service" usually with a "wink-and-a-nod" - smiling, good-naturedly, as they took their fellow citizens to task. They wrote and criticized in more the manner of a big brother than a preacher, and addressed all manner of universal human foibles - hypocrisy, chauvinism, stubbornest and, frequently, the ever present "holier-than-thou" attitude. The goal was not to embarrass or single out a person or persons for ridicule but to force people to actually think about what was happening in their country and in their own personal lives. And, while forcing Americans to think about these non sequiturs, consider why this behavior made any sense!

Far removed from today’s "in your face," confrontational and highly partisan shouting matches (today, most of the critics are of the "talking head" variety) that are but pale shadows of legitimate wit and common sense, these early social critics were more, well, adherents of a Marquis of Queensberry-like code - that is to say, there were rules and decorum. There was no venomous name-calling or feigned hatred of the type that blares out on the cable networks. These commentaries of the "good old days" were, quite often, satirical observations composed to stimulate the brains (not the ears) of every reader. These compositions called on people to decide - for themselves - if what was happening around them really made sense, to them personally. There was very little questioning of the reader’s allegiance to their nation ("my country, right or wrong") or their theology or their intellect and never, ever, did these satirists question the legitimacy of one’s birth - in other words, all the sleazy tactics that are part and parcel of what passes for commentary today.

These skilled, early artists wrote, principally, for newspapers as that was the prime form of mass communication in the age (circa 1880-1930). Occasionally, they would take their ink-dipped swords between the covers of magazines, such as The American Mercury established by one of the best examples of this artistry, H.L. Mencken. They were the forerunners of what we call today, quite euphemistically, "political commentators." These early practitioners of the art - and their style and insights were, indeed, artful - were far different from what we have to settle for today. Even if you didn’t agree with them, they always entertained, usually informed and, often enough, made you flip the issue on its head and look at it from a new viewpoint. If they didn’t change your mind, they usually caused you to actually think about why you actually believed what you believed. And that is always a good outcome.

Another difference in these pioneers of critical writing was that politics was not something to be defended - from either the conservative barricade or the liberal ramparts. Instead, politics was a subject to be examined, turned inside-out, questioned and - if necessary - mercilessly bludgeoned regardless of what particular party was in power. These truly unaffiliated wiseacres were just as likely to rant and rave against the conservative neo-imperialism of Teddy Roosevelt as they would condemn, endlessly, the liberal socialistic policies of Wilson or F.D.R. They were, as hard as it is to believe today, absolutely nondiscriminatory in their criticism. If they had what could have been called a political position, it would have best been called libertarian for they saw, clearer than most of their time, what government did under all regimes: namely, the expanding power of a centralized bureaucracy stomped on the toes (and often the kneecaps and skulls) of the American citizens. Government encroachment - whether it was lead by a liberal Democrat, a conservative Republican or any combination of the two - was a call to arms for these wordsmiths of a bygone era. They did not (they dare not!) align themselves with any party or philosophy of government; they were not mouthpieces for anyone other than for their fellow countrymen.

In the contemporary world of social/political commentary, there is no such thing as an "unaffiliated" - much less "unbiased" - critic. Because of the polarization of America into the two dominant schools of thought - liberal or conservative - there seems to no longer be a role for the unaligned pundit. In the words of today’s candidates: "You’re either for us or against us." Tragically, that has become the mantra of the current age for both political parties. The large swath of "middle ground is, thus, mined and barb-wired, and is a "no man’s land." There is no safe (much less influential) refuge for the ideology of uncommitted, unbiased, balanced (despite the rhetoric of Fox News Corporation) and unattached criticism.

That is our shame - and our loss.

There should be a place for such commentary. Today, when we read (or, more often, hear) the twaddle of the reigning commentators, we all know where their allegiances lie. When George Will or William Kristol speak or write, we know they will line up, most of the time, with conservatives; when Bill Moyers or Walter Cronkite are heard, they will voice a liberal viewpoint. Tragically, this has a distinctively negative effect of the diffusion of their ideas: the majority of liberals don’t read Will or Kristol; the majority of conservatives don’t care to see or hear Moyers or Cronkite.

The result is that nobody bothers to hear views that oppose their own and, that, gentle reader, is why there is such hostility and, consequently, polarization in this nation today. We all comfortably listen and read those who support and reinforce our own beliefs and actively avoid those who might challenge what we absolutely, positively know to be true, that is to say, confront "our" truth. Even more to the point, most of us socialize and discuss our ideologies with those who, on the majority of issues, we know agree with us. Unless we are professional debaters or pundits - or, God Forbid, merely "seekers of truth" - we generally don’t enjoy having our heartfelt and passionately held beliefs argued and threatened by others. Thus, we hold them close to our hearts and minds and protect them by insulating and isolating them from any threats. As a result (and, unhappily, in my opinion) our views never change or even mollify.

With the "for us or against us" mindset, so entrenched in America’s social and political thought, we have become, irresistibly and recalcitrantly, conservative or liberal, gun control proponents or right-to-bear-arms advocates, "red states" or "blue states" and "pro-life" or "pro-choice." And never the twain shall meet, much less try to understand or, at least, listen to opposing arguments. Hence, we sit in our respective trenches cheering our best artillerymen as they hurl hail and brimstone at the other trenches and, in turn, their guns assault our position. No conversation. No discourse. No quarter asked and none given.

Is this any way to live together in a diverse country where ideas were once diligently studied as if they were precious jewels to be assayed, weighed on the scale of reason and, best of all, displayed for all to appreciate? I think not.

But, that is just my opinion.