Saturday, February 15, 2025

From My Front Porch

Is this 'The Dating Game' or some other game show?

Posted

Like most folks, I am occupied with work throughout the day. I do not have the opportunity to stop what I am doing to watch the U.S. Senate confirmation hearings for U.S. Cabinet nominees. Instead, I see snippets on the national news and read in print or online what transpired. It is my earnest belief that many of you may be like me, shaking your head observing what should be a serious and respectful question and answer period turn into a three-ring circus. To be clear, I am not advocating for either party nor for any potential appointee, just simply commenting on the process from both sides of the aisle.

“Advice and consent” is a critical phrase in the United States Constitution that outlines a key aspect of the checks and balances among the three branches of government. The term is used to define the roles and responsibilities of the Senate in the appointment of officials by the president. Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution stipulates the president “shall nominate and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States.”

This means that while the president has the power to nominate individuals for these positions, the Senate must approve these nominations before they can officially take office. The purpose of the clause is to ensure a balance of power between the executive and legislative branches and to prevent the potential for the misuse of power by the president.

Thus, the Senate is entitled to question potential cabinet members as to their fitness and qualifications. Years ago, this meant the Senate would respectfully question a candidate and attempt to get a feeling for how that person’s personal philosophy might affect how they would carry out the responsibilities of the office. Unfortunately, “respectful” and “purposeful” seems to have little to do with the status of our current Senate hearings.

I remember the 1960s TV game show “The Dating Game.” I would fondly watch the show where a young woman or man would be on one side of a wall, and three potential suitors would be on the other side of the wall, out of the sight of the contestant. The contestant would ask questions to the three people, and they would each give a response. When the short period of questioning was over, the contestant would choose one of the three and they would go out on a date together. It was superficial, silly, sometimes suggestive, and created for the sole purpose of entertaining a television audience. No one thought it would really lead to the best possible date for the candidate. It was all done in fun!

Our current Senate hearings remind me of “The Dating Game.” One side praises the nominee as being an extraordinarily qualified, once-in-a-lifetime candidate who will surely reform our government and lead it to heights, which we have never before achieved. The other side of the political coin may not even ask questions, they simply produce oratory, which is not intended to solicit answers but is political diatribe, spit out in the form of oratory designed to make the candidate look lower than whale droppings on the bottom of the ocean. The potential candidates do not answer truthfully; they answer “politically;” giving the response which will move the polls in a positive way. The people asking the questions are simply looking for a “gotcha moment” that can be used as social media “clickbait.”

Must the Senate accept any candidate who is nominated, or were the authors of the Constitution correct in creating a system of checks and balances? In exercising the right to give its “advice and consent,” does the Senate have an obligation to rise above the level of asking for a candidate’s favorite color and whether they prefer ham or turkey for their Thanksgiving meal? This is a serious time in American history. I cannot help but feel like what we do over the next few years will determine whether we exist as a nation in 40 years. Don’t our politicians have a higher responsibility to fulfill the obligations of their office than they do to fulfill their obligations to their party or their donors? Shouldn’t it be about getting the best person in office, with the understanding it is the president’s cabinet, and it should be people he believes are best to work with unless there is some glaring reason to rule a candidate out. Where are the statesmen?

Enough is enough.

Thought for the day: “The term ‘Congressional hearing’ is an oxymoron. No Congressional hearing is ever called to gather information. Rather, it is an exercise designed strictly for posturing by people who have already made up their minds, looking for ammunition to support their positions.” — Jack McDevitt

Until next time ... I will keep ridin’ the storm out!