Letter to the editor: Skepticism is healthy when it comes to politicians

Joseph Sabino Mistick’s column “Public ‘referees’ there to protect us” characterizing the recent pronouncements of political leaders on the covid-19 crisis or 2020 election results as statements of “moral conscience,” made in the spirit of referees officiating a boxing match, requires a true leap of faith.

While acknowledging in passing that elected officials are by design the product of a partisan process, Mistick asserts without citing any evidence that those officials are somehow able, on two questions of significant societal impact of which the latter is inherently part of the partisan electoral process, to set aside their partisan leanings and become impartial advocates for universal moral precepts.

One can and should decry all acts of threats of violence, such as those noted in the column. Violence and intimidation are inherently evil, whether in regard to political leaders or others. But that inherent evil does not mean that the statements of political leaders should not be viewed with judicious skepticism — after all, it is a well known political saying that a crisis is a terrible thing to waste, so to believe that political leaders are magically rendered impartial and do not look to advance their own parties and individual careers with their actions in time of crisis is at a minimum somewhat naive.

A politician’s history of actions and statements is a fair factor when assessing the motives that underlie that politician’s current actions and statements; the more partisan that history, the less one might be inclined to believe that current actions are solely motivated by impartial moral considerations.

Dave Thomas

Bradford Woods