“According to polls, Americans are in a mood to hold their breath until they turn blue. Voters appear to be so fed up with the Democrats that they’re ready to toss them out in favor of the Republicans — for whom, according to those same polls, the nation has even greater contempt. This isn’t an ‘electoral wave,’ it’s a temper tantrum.”

—Op-Ed writer Eugene Robinson in the Sept. 3 Washington Post

The surest proof that a citizen or commentator is partisan beyond the point of fairness, objectivity, or even common sense is the abandonment of the ethical principle of accountability. Voters with this malady re-elect demonstrably corrupt politicians, cheats and liars, using the argument that they are still the “best candidates.” While this is fortunate for elected officials, past and present, like Tom DeLay, Bill Clinton, Charlie Rangel, Maxine Waters, Eddie Johnson, Ted Stevens, and many, many others, it guarantees bad government and a rotting political culture, perpetrated by increasingly arrogant, unresponsive, incompetent and dishonest public servants.

Why? The answer is simple: when elected officials learn that their misdeeds and poor performance will never result in their losing their jobs as long as the public gives out votes based on loyalty, labels, and philosophical affinity rather than on the basis of accomplishments and conduct, they conclude, correctly, are not accountable for their actions. Then they can, for example, enrich themselves with lobbyist cash while passing legislation they never bothered to read, secure in the knowledge that all they need to do is portray the alternative to their employment as even worse.

And maybe the alternative is even worse: it doesn’t matter. If pubic servants show themselves to be corrupt and inept, the public must send a message that they are accountable, by voting them out of office. That is a citizen’s duty. It is no “tantrum” to meet it. Robinson should be ashamed of himself for demeaning responsible citizens who, unlike him, understand what must be done…what must always be done.

When an elected representative of either political party does his or her job dishonestly, venally, or incompetently, that representative most be shown that his or her failures will not be rewarded, encouraged or tolerated, by the act of replacing the misbehaving individual with his or her opponent. That is the right and responsible thing to do, even if the alternative candidate or his or her party is held in “greater contempt,” even if the alternative was kicked out of office for similar nonfeasance, misfeasance or malfeasance, even if the alternative is an ex-felon, a womanizer, a  community organizer with even less executive leadership than, say, a folksy small town Alaska mayor...or a lawn chair. The principle of accountability demands that the change be made. The elected alternative—man, woman, or lawn chair—is then on notice that he, she or it will be held accountable too. He she (or it) will know they have to try to do better, because if they do not, they will be held accountable for their poor performances too, and risk being justifiably replaced by the very same failures the public threw out of office to elect them.

This is how democracy works. It does not work and cannot work when there is not guaranteed and consistent accountability.

That a regular columnist for the Washington Post dares to offer political opinion and analysis when he fails to grasp this basic concept is no less than frightening.