For me, the test of fairness, which many of us fail, is if we would have the same view of events if the situation were reversed.
An employee approaches his boss requesting a raise, pointing out that he has not had a raise in 2 years, while other colleagues have received pay increases. The boss responds that while his performance was highly satisfactory, the colleagues who did receive pay raises demonstrated sterling reviews. The employee believes this decision is unfair, and suggests there may have been some favoritism at play. The fairness test here is what would the employee do if he were the manager.
A nursing supervisor is told that two nurses on a hospital ward are unable to report to their shift. Each nurse has to carry a heavier patient load for that shift. These nurses believe that they are entitled to additional compensation as their already heavy work load has been increased. This request is denied by the hospital’s administration. I wonder if the hospital administrators would agree with their edict if they were the overworked nurses on that shift. Would they still agree that no additional pay for additional work is downright fair? Can't you just hear them saying that if they were these nurses that they would welcome the opportunity to be saddled with extra work and would refuse any offer for additional comp. (Readers are invited to laugh at this point.)
Events always look a little different when we swap places.
The Attorney General of the United States, Jeff Sessions, is the newest star performer on CNN and other networks this week. He gave misleading responses during his confirmation hearings when asked if he had any contact with Russian officials during the campaign. In addition, he did not correct his misstatements afterwards until his 2 meetings with the Russian ambassador were disclosed. He has been accused of lying and deceiving congress, an allegation that he denies. He claims that he misunderstood the question and had no intent to mislead anyone.
Public Enemy #1?
Personally, I am not satisfied with his inaccurate testimony and subsequent silence Did he lie? I’m not sure. If so, it would seem to be a poor choice since telling the truth of the two meetings could have been justified and explained.
Many Democrats are screaming for his resignation and for a special counsel to be brought in to assess the situation independently. I suggest that the reasons behind these two Democrat requests have nothing to do with Sessions’ behavior, but deserve a larger context, which I’m sure my readers will acknowledge.
We all know that when there is an independent counsel that the investigation always morphs into a mega-mission creep that extends far beyond the initial target. That’s why political partisans always zealously request this measure when the other party is under attack, but push back hard when they are in the crosshairs.
Now for the fairness test. Remember when the Democrats were screaming and whining when independent counsel Ken Starr was on the attack? His mission started with Whitewater but was incrementally expanded and extended to the Monica Lewinsky affair. I think the Democrats had a valid point that his investigation became untethered. However, is an independent counsel only fair when your opponents are being targeted?
As for Jeff Sessions resigning, I think this is transparent partisanship. How would the Dems react if the situation were reversed? The experiment has already been done. Remember when Loretta Lynch, the Attorney General had a near hour long meeting with Bill Clinton on the tarmac while Mrs. Clinton was the target of an FBI investigation? Quite a long time to be discussing golf and grandchildren.
How many Democrats called upon her to resign or face a special prosecutor? Have they passed the fairness test?
Of course, many partisan Democrats will point out the the Lynch affair is 'completely different' from the Sessions matter. How stupid do they think we are?
I'm taking aim at the Democrats here, but I fully acknowledge that the GOP also fails the fairness test regularly.