Critical Columns

The following are two articles that took a different approach to politics. Rather than persuade I critiqued. The subject was Representative Rod Blum, Congressman for Iowa's 1st district. The articles should be considered a couplet since they were published in back-to-back weeks, and hit many of the same issues and themes. Back then there was a big debate surrounding the Affordable Health Care Act, which was meant to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act passed seven years before. This was a big deal, legislatively, deserving of public input, but Rep. Blum wasn't taking any. Instead of hosting town halls, he stayed in D.C. for mutiple congressional recess' until finally relenting and hosting one in early May.

An Inconsistent Voice for Iowa

The thrust of the first article was that Rep. Blum campaigned as an independent voice for Iowa, a businessman who would work outside partisan boundaries, but has governed as a partisan politician, independent from the influence of his constituents. Honestly, during my earlier years in writing for The Lorian, I didn't think writing critical pieces were inside my purview or worth the effort. That changed by Senior year, however, because, after work on multiple political campaigns, I knew from experience every little bit counts. In fact, this lesson was affirmed later when I had a chance encounter with Rep. Blum's legislative aide, who recognized my name from reading these articles (he was none too pleased, to say the least). My takeaway from it all: I have a voice, and I must make it heard.  

Profile in Cowardice

The next installment calls Rep. Blum a coward for not hosting a town hall so as to hear out the concerns of his constituents. Though harsh, I stand by what I said, because sometimes truth is brutal. When actions are laid bare with motivations self-evident, citizens should not hesitate from calling it as they see it, for to do otherwise would be blurring the truth and dereliction of duty.

There are times when my criticisms are clearly partisan, a fact I will own up to. I try to hew away from those topics, those lines of attack, because they're boring and predictable. Instead, I enjoy finding that train of thought which most can agree with, because criticism alone is not enough; to me, I have a responsibility to present an alternative, or at least create a common foundation for my critique. Otherwise, everything devolves into sectarian sniping--tribalism--and everyone loses then.