In the so-called democratic system of governance, there is
supposed to be an elected government and an opposition that has a different
philosophy of governance therefore a point of view that remains at variance
with the way that the government is conducting the business of the nation. But
the opposition must remember at all time that its has the duty to remain loyal
to the country, which means it can only differ politically with the government,
and cannot mount a coup against it, or foment an insurrection that would have
the effect of paralyzing it, thus paralyze and hurt the nation.
To make certain that in the cacophony of the government
making its case as it defends the decisions it takes; and the cacophony of the
political opposition as it pushes back against the government in every way it
can, the democratic system has provided for the voice of the electorate to be
heard over both sides, and to prevail when the stakes are high. To this end,
the system has provided for a journalistic set-up to be in the service of the
people – not that of the governing party or that of the opposition. Journalism,
in fact, is supposed to play the role of judge and referee, thus keep the game
within the bounds of the rules that are set for it.
What has been happening, however – decades or centuries
after the adoption of the so-called democratic system of governance in some
places – is that the mouthpieces of the people known collectively as the press
forgot who it was set-up to speak for, and started to speak for the government
or the opposition while ignoring the people it was meant to serve. And because
the press has no legal obligation to be loyal to anyone, it chose to be loyal
to itself. That is, the press declared loyalty to its publishers and editors –
the individuals who created journalistic fiefdoms and ruled over them like
little dictators.
In time, those publishers and editors began to take sides,
lining themselves with the government or the opposition who became so reliant
on the press to carry their message to the public, they ceded to it some of the
powers vested in them by the electorate. And this is the way that heads of
journalistic fiefdoms have managed to acquire real political clout, wielding it
like little dictators.
All that becomes apparent to the readers who delve into the
editorial that was published in the Wall Street Journal on April 15, 2015 under
the title: “Obama's One-Man Nuclear Deal” and the subtitle: “Congress will get
a vote but the president still has a free hand.” The irony of this piece is
that the editors do not lament the powers that the press has illegitimately
amassed, but the powers that the executive and the legislative branches (the
government and the opposition) are legitimately haggling about.
The remarkable thing about this editorial is the amount of
space (more than half of it) which is devoted to describing how future moves
can, and probably will be played, both by the President and by the Congress –
each side trying to seize control of the situation and make it its own. Sadly,
however, what is missing in all of this is mention of the American people on
whose behalf the executive and legislative branches are supposed to be working,
and whose behalf the press is supposed to be speaking.
Having come to this point, the editors of the Journal now
express: “Our own view of all this is closer to that of...” But you ask: Why
bother doing this, given that they have been expressing their views with every
word they uttered in the piece? Well, the fact is that something continues to
bother them.
It is that they fear the systemic gridlock, which allows
them to grab and amass political powers, is about to be undermined. And so,
they want to see the Iran
nuclear deal submitted to the Senate as a treaty; a move that will require an
affirmative vote by two-thirds of the senate to pass. And this has been the one
reliable trick proven to preserve the gridlock.
And so the editors of the Wall Street Journal end their
piece with a final lamentation and a hint of defiance: “Mr. Obama can probably
do what he wants anyway, but the Iranians are on notice that the United States
isn't run by a single Supreme Leader.