I’m
giving
up.
I’ve
decided
there’s
no
reason
to
watch
a
politician
on
television.
Forget Meet
the
Press
or This
Week
With
George
Stephanopoulos. The
talking
heads
on
those
shows
are
generally
politicians,
and
I
just
don’t
care
any
more.
So,
too,
for
the
politicians
who
appear
on
a
nightly
news
programs
or
one
of
the
evening
opinion
shows.
I
think
I’ll
boycott.
It’s
not
that
I
loathe
all
politicians
—
although
that’s
increasingly
becoming
true. It’s
more
that what
politicians
say
is
so
entirely
predictable. In
fact,
I
could
play
all
politicians
—
Democrats
and
Republicans
alike
—
on
television,
and
save
a
lot
of
effort.
“Hey,
Mark. Now
you’re
a
Democratic
senator. What
do
you
have
to
say
about
the
attacks
on
fishing
boats
and
capture
of
Nicolas
Maduro
in
Venezuela?”
“It’s
a
sin. There’s
no
war. There’s
no
justification
for
the
military
to
kill
people
whose
boats
could
be
interdicted. And
the
military
operation
against
Maduro
was
an
impressive
military
display,
but
what
are
we
going
to
achieve
by
it,
and
shouldn’t
Trump
have
consulted
Congress?”
Right?
Wait! Someone’s
calling
me.
“Hey,
Mark. Now
you’re
a
Republican
senator. What
do
you
have
to
say
about
Venezuela?”
“Can
you
believe
those
crazy
Democrats
are
taking
the
side
of
narcoterrorists? The
guys
in
the
boats
are
bringing
drugs
into
the
United
States,
killing
tens
of
thousands
of
Americans,
and
the
Democrats
want
it
to
happen! Trump
taught
the
Venezuelan
drug
traffickers
a
lesson,
and
he
had
the
guts
to
take
out
a
vicious
and
dangerous
ruler. Three
cheers
for
Trump!”
What
do
I
need
politicians
for?
It’s
not
just
politicians.
I
don’t
want
to
hear
from
the
heads
of
the
Democratic
or
Republican
National
Committees
any
more,
either.
Same
problem. I
know
what
they’re
going
to
say
before
they
open
their
mouths. When
backed
into
a
logical
corner,
partisans
just
repeat
the
talking
points,
refuse
to
give
direct
answers
to
questions,
and
filibuster
for
a
while. Who
needs
’em?
Now
that
I’m
at
it,
let’s
stop
all
of
the
televised
interview
of
lawyers
who
represent
parties
to
a
lawsuit.
“Hey,
Mark. Pretend
you’re
the
lawyer
who
represents
the
plaintiff
in
a
high-profile
lawsuit. What
do
you
have
to
say?”
“The
plaintiff
is
entirely
correct. The
other
side
is
talking
nonsense. All
of
their
arguments
are
stupid! It’s
an
outrage,
and
we’re
looking
forward
to
our
day
in
court!”
“Hey,
Mark. Do
the
defendant.”
“The
defendant
is
entirely
correct. The
other
side
is
talking
nonsense. All
of
their
arguments
are
stupid. It’s
an
outrage,
and
we’re
looking
forward
to
our
day
in
court!”
It’s
not
that
the
people
being
interviewed
are
necessarily
stupid
(although
many
of
them
are). It’s
that
they’re
entirely
predictable. Folks
know
the
side
on
which
their
bread
is
buttered. Their
future,
in
the
case
of
politicians,
or
their
paychecks,
in
the
case
of
counsel,
depend
on
them
speaking
particular
words. They
can’t
veer
from
the
script,
so
they
won’t.
Instead
of
partisans,
interview
a
couple
of
academics,
who
may
really
know
something
about
a
subject
and
could
be
convinced
to
change
their
minds. Let
the
academics
debate. They’ll
probably
be
able
to
have
a
discussion
without
talking
over
each
other,
and
maybe
one
could
convince
the
other
of
a
compromise
position.
Or
give
me
honest
reporters,
who
will
tell
you
what
their
reporting
shows
and
also
explain
where
the
gaps
in
knowledge
are.
But
politicians?
I
guess
we
need
’em
in
office,
but
I
can’t
be
forced
to
listen
to
’em.
Mark Herrmann spent
17
years
as
a
partner
at
a
leading
international
law
firm
and
later
oversaw
litigation,
compliance
and
employment
matters
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].