A stream of opinions on the politics of the day

• Democrats need to avoid falling into the trap of opposing the war against Iran just because Donald Trump started it (although one could argue that Iran did, nearly 50 years ago, when it seized our embassy and diplomats in Tehran).
• Amid all of the gnashing of teeth and hysterics regarding the cutoff of governmental funding for PBS/NPR/Big Bird, the major question remains unanswered: If such fare is as popular and necessary as claimed, even national cultural treasure, why can't it survive in the entertainment/news marketplace like other programming? Why would there be any need for government subsidization?
• Those defending DEI programs either deceitfully or naively claim that it is all simply about "diversity, equity, and inclusion," none of which, on the face of it, any reasonable person would object to. They also claim that DEI has nothing whatsoever to do with racial preferences or quotas.

In reality, the linkage between DEI and quotas/preferences is inescapable because preferences are necessary to reach the target quotas, and the quotas are adopted by companies in hiring because they are means of protecting themselves against legal challenges based on "disparate impact" theory, which argues that any practices that result in racial outcomes that are disproportionate vis-à-vis the racial makeup of the broader population stem from discrimination. The underlying, profoundly illogical assumption undergirding disparate impact theory is that, absent racial discrimination, every group would be represented in any organizational setting or procedural outcome in numbers equivalent to their proportion of the population. Failure to witness such results constitutes de facto evidence of the existence of discrimination, even if it cannot be explained how the discrimination operates in such cases or any discriminatory intent can be identified, with the degree of deviation from proportionality taken as a measure of the degree of the discrimination.

This is absurd because it ignores cultural differences among racial and ethnic groups that have forever prevented proportional representation in any outcomes or endeavors. Interestingly, and revealingly, such arguments are never employed and legal challenges on such a basis are never filed when minority groups are over-represented in certain sectors and settings. • Democrats were wrong when they attempted to nationalize federal elections during the Biden administration, and Republicans are now wrong to try to do so during Trump's.

Yes, we need voter identification nationwide and perhaps stricter measures to prevent non-citizen voting and most certainly a curtailment of the plague of mass mail-in ballots, but these are steps that should continue to be taken, as throughout our history and in accord with the Constitution, at the state level. • The quality of our political commentary, like that of our political discourse in general, continues to deteriorate with our ugly tribalism. The vast majority of what is now being published in that regard isn't worth reading because it consists of little more than rote expressions of such tribalism. "

Thou shall not criticize Trump for anything" has become the operating rule for many in our commentariat, while "thou shall criticize Trump for everything" has become that for an even larger chunk. The problem with such reflexive cheerleading and condemnation is that it is tiresome and redundant and thus utterly uninteresting in every sense. The credibility of so many on both sides has been shattered because they have thrown aside any pretense of objectivity and adherence to political principles in favor of warm, fuzzy tribal approval.

For every George Will, we get several dozen mercenary propagandists masquerading as pundits, to the point where it has become little more than dueling versions of Pravda. One can read the opinion columns published every day on RealClearPolitics and by looking at the headline and who the author is, already know what they contain; there is no self-doubt, no uncertainty, no reservations, and, above all, no intelligence, simply mindless, reflexive spewing and rationalization and denunciation. We should not, as commentators (or simply citizens) assign ourselves the task of always defending or criticizing certain politicians (rather, the presumption in any healthy democracy is that the rascals should be tarred and feathered, out of principle).

We are not, in short, in the realm of public discourse, bodyguards for our public servants. Where have you gone Charles Krauthammer, Christopher Hitchens, and Michael Kelly? Freelance columnist Bradley R. Gitz, who lives in Batesville, received his Ph.

D. in political science from the University of Illinois.