No, ‘checks and balances’ does not mean party vs. party

A couple of weeks ago I served lunch to some very nice folks at the lounge where I work. They were obvious fans of the president and were watching a Trump rally on their iPhone with the sound turned low, so as to not bother other patrons.

They were in their fifties and didn’t seem wealthy, but perhaps they would be considered “middle class.” After I smiled at them and pointed at their choice of video, the man said he and his wife hadn’t voted much in their lives, but they do now because of Donald Trump. The woman’s name was Nancy, “Like Nancy Pelosi?” I said, and she laughed.

“NO! Definitely not like her!” Nancy said.

As they had their lunch, I overheard them having a discussion about how each felt about voting in November. Nancy asked her husband what certain references meant that the president used and asked him how many seats were needed for a majority in the House, things that made it clear she was trying to learn so that she could become an educated voter.

Then Nancy asked him who he was voting for. Her husband said he would be voting all Republican. That gave Nancy pause.

“I don’t know; I just don’t think that’s right. I think there should be checks and balances,” Nancy said.

Her husband didn’t really respond to that point, but they continued to have a discussion over lunch, and when they left, they wished me a good day and hoped I could get out of work early to enjoy the weather.

A couple of days ago I heard Nancy Pelosi say the same thing: That voting for Democrats would “restore checks and balances,” and I cringed at how easily the other Nancy fell for that line.

The way that Democrats twist the meanings of words and phrases to benefit them politically is just one part of their long game. They torture the language and inject believable lies faster than those who know better can educate. It was not my place to tell the other Nancy what “checks and balances” really means, but I hope she stays curious enough to want to find out on her own.

But Nancy Pelosi knows better. What kind of crackpot idea would it be if the Founders had decided that there would be two major parties and when one is out of power, the other gets a turn, or else we don’t have the proper checks and balances? Why even put it to a vote? Why not just schedule power until the end of days?

The Founders didn’t set up two parties to compete with each other; that happened over the years as philosophies manifested themselves. “Checks and balances” means only the different branches of government interacting with the actions of one another, as well as the federal government and state governments acting within their constitutional powers.

Nancy Pelosi’s rhetoric is just a fancy disguise for her belief that it’s necessary for the Democrats to impeach the president. Since she has publicly said she doesn’t want Democrats to talk about that, she means to repurpose the phrase “checks and balances” to mean Democrats versus Republicans instead of branch versus branch. Either way, she needs to be called out for that by prominent Republicans who can quickly explain the true meaning of the phrase — and stop her and her party from getting away with this miseducation of the public.

How else are we ever going to get anywhere? If Republicans continue to just roll their eyes at the crazy word salad that comes out of the mouths of Pelosi and the rest of the destroyers, their lies about basic civic definitions will stand. If voters are not taught in school, Republicans had better get on the ball and stop allowing Democrats to destroy our system of government by a simple turn — make that twist — of phrase.

Nancy, if you are out there, please find the “Federalist Papers” and read Federalist 51.

#mc_embed_signup{background:#fff; clear:left; font:14px}

/* Add your own MailChimp form style overrides in your site stylesheet or in this style block.

We recommend moving this block and the preceding CSS link to the HEAD of your HTML file. */