From the file. Written for the paper dated February 1979. Opened in the public stacks July 14, 2026.
As the nation grapples with the complexities of redistricting, it is crucial to examine the bipartisan habit of selective memory that shapes the discourse surrounding this issue. Both sides of the political spectrum seem to conveniently forget their own past actions while criticizing their opponents.
The Political Landscape
The delicate dance of redistricting in America is a reflection of a larger political reality. With the 1980 Census looming, state legislatures are preparing to redraw district lines that will determine the balance of power for the next decade. This process is often mired in controversy, as both Democrats and Republicans engage in what many refer to as gerrymandering - a practice that manipulates district boundaries to favor one party over another. Each party accuses the other of being the principal architect of this manipulation, yet both have a long history of engaging in the very tactics they now decry.
Selective Memory on the Left
On the left, the rhetoric surrounding redistricting often invokes the principles of fairness and representation. Progressives champion the idea of fair districts, free from the pernicious influence of partisan interests. However, one must not forget that many of these same voices were silent when Democrats wielded their power to craft districts that served their own electoral ambitions. The shameful legacy of the 1970s in some states showcases how Democrats have used redistricting to entrench their hold on power, often at the expense of meaningful representation for minorities and other marginalized groups.
“Both parties are guilty of using redistricting as a tool for entrenchment, yet they each blame the other for the problem.”
Selective Memory on the Right
Conversely, the right has often positioned itself as the defender of fair play, condemning the Democratic Party for its past redistricting sins. While Republicans are quick to point fingers, they too have their own history of manipulating district lines to benefit their party. The irony is palpable as they now call for reforms that would limit the power of the very tactics they once embraced. The current Republican rhetoric, which emphasizes accountability and transparency, often overlooks their previous complicity in the same game they now claim to oppose.
A Call for Accountability
As both parties engage in this blame game, it becomes increasingly clear that the issue of redistricting is not merely a partisan concern but a fundamental question of democracy itself. It is imperative that citizens hold their elected officials accountable for their actions on both sides of the aisle. The failure to do so allows the cycle of manipulation to continue unchecked, perpetuating a political environment where the interests of the few overshadow the needs of the many.
Looking Ahead
The upcoming redistricting process presents an opportunity for both parties to break the cycle of selective memory and engage in a more honest discourse about the future of American democracy. The urgency for reform is palpable, and the voices of citizens demanding fairness and integrity in the political process are growing louder. If we are to emerge from this cycle of manipulation, it is essential that we confront the uncomfortable truths about our political history.
Conclusion
The bipartisan habit of selective memory regarding redistricting highlights a troubling aspect of American politics. Both parties have, at various times, engaged in practices that undermine the very principles they profess to uphold. As we move toward the next decade, it is essential for voters to demand accountability and transparency in the redistricting process. Only then can we hope to restore faith in our electoral system and ensure that every voice is heard.
✦ ✦ ✦