The partisanship is unbearable. If the Democrats support it, the Republicans don’t. If the Republicans support it, the Democrats don’t. The party that’s out of power strives for complete stagnation, to show that the party that’s in power is inept.
Two things lit me up recently.
First, I was talking to my son, Jeremy — you remember him — on the phone. He’s a smart and perceptive young man. He posed a perfectly good question: “There’s really no political reason for the party that’s out of power ever to vote for something that lets the party that’s in power succeed. But that had to always be true. Why does it seem as though Congress could pass laws 50 years ago, when exactly the same incentives were in play?”
AI Is Reshaping Legal Practice—But Tools Aren’t The Real Differentiator.
Explore the mindset, cultural shifts, and training strategies that define the AI‑savvy lawyer, revealing why human judgment, standardized competence, and integrated learning—not technology alone—will shape the future of the profession.
I had to fall back on the usual answer when I was stumped by one of Jeremy’s questions 25 years ago: “Good question. Ask your mother.”
(On reflection, maybe there’s a real answer to Jeremy’s question: Districts are more gerrymandered now than they were in the past. Fifty years ago, if a member of Congress voted against a popular bill, a politician from the other party would use that vote as a bludgeon in a general election, and the member of Congress would lose his or her seat. Today, with gerrymandered districts, there’s no risk of loss in a general election even if a member votes against a very popular bill. There’s no longer a reason to compromise.)
But it’s not just my conversation with Jeremy that got me fired up.
I was also watching Fareed Zakaria’s “GPS” one Sunday morning, and his guests were very smart, held diametrically opposed views on a subject, and were not political. Larry Summers and Paul Krugman are both renowned economists who differ on some important issues. Summers thinks that the $1.9 trillion pandemic relief package will cause inflation. And he doubts that Congress will pass an infrastructure bill, on top of the pandemic relief, because piling another few trillion on top of the trillions already spent is reckless and dangerous.
AI Built for Litigation. Verified by Design.
Grounded in authoritative content and verified at every step, Protégé is the only legal AI tool that delivers work you can trust—without exception.
Krugman disagrees. Interest rates are low. Borrowing money is almost costless. The economy shows no signs of inflation. Borrow and rebuild the economy now, while times are good. Spend.
Those are violently different positions, but during the interview, Summers never called Krugman a moron, and Krugman never attacked Summers’ motives. They just laid out their thoughts, and reasonable listeners could make a judgment.
There have been similar interesting, intelligent discussions when, for example, Zakaria hosted Doris Kearns Goodwin and Jon Meacham, who are accomplished historians, but occasionally disagree about what the past teaches us.
Contrast that with, for example, “This Week With George Stephanopoulos,” which tends to interview politicians. The Democrats spew a couple of talking points and then start insulting the other side: “On the pandemic relief package, they vote no and take the dough. It’s the way Republicans are.”
Republicans, in turn, spew a couple of talking points and then gripe about funding Democratic wish-lists.
Frankly, I’m not sure there’s any subject on which it’s actually worth interviewing, or listening to, a politician. Politicians know less about economics than economists. They know less about history than historians. They know less about anything than people who are truly informed.
Spending hours each day dialing for political contributions and then skimming the talking points doesn’t educate them; it makes them less interesting (and, perhaps, less fit for office).
Maybe — maybe — a senator would be a real source of information about, say, the rules governing the filibuster, as to which a senator might have experience. But even there, I’d bet that a student of the filibuster could discuss the subject more intelligently than most senators.
Or maybe you’d interview politicians solely to learn what the talking points are. But those interviews could be short: “Mr. or Ms. Democrat, could you please tell me the talking points on immigration?” And “Mr. or Ms. Republican, how about you?” There’s surely no reason to listen to the two sides quibble after they’ve laid out the talking points; the quibbling is annoying and uninformative.
Am I alone in the world?
Or are there a ton of people who are disgusted by MSNBC on the left, and Fox on the right, and politicians in general, and would prefer to hear from intelligent sources who actually knew what they were talking about?
If I’m not alone, why can’t a television network succeed in the middle, inviting guests who have come to different opinions based on a lifetime of study and who can present those opinions calmly and rationally, without insulting anyone who disagrees?
I know that society has become terribly divided.
But is there no room for intelligent discussion in the middle?
Call me Howard Beale: “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore!”
Mark Herrmann spent 17 years as a partner at a leading international law firm and is now deputy general counsel at a large international company. He is the author of The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Practicing Law and Drug and Device Product Liability Litigation Strategy (affiliate links). You can reach him by email at [email protected].