Someone has to tell our congress, both parties, that the sentiment Mr. Lincoln spoke of: government of, by and for the people, applies today just as it did 150 years ago. In our day, we see politicians ignoring the will of the people and voting yea or nay simply to stand with their party or with a particular base of that party.
I have never liked the symbolism in deliberative bodies of the term “whips”, it conjuring up Dickensian images of cajoling or bantering members of the House or Senate to vote a certain way because the party demands it. Even worse are those who agree to vote in the proscribed way in exchange for pet projects or bills that benefit a few people who parenthetically may well be major contributors. Inducements like that may come terribly close to corruption to “we the people” but they are merely Washington’s brand of insider trading.
Consider Mr. Nelson of Nebraska and his similarly named colleague from Florida at the critical moment of the healthcare debate. Shameful is not the word for their actions.
Are we really so naïve as to believe that pharmaceutical and petro-chemical companies, insurance and banking interests really believe in the precepts of either major party? Hardly: as their donations indicate: they give money for one thing only: votes.
It is not an accident that our key legislative branch is called the House of Representatives. Indeed it is what separates a democracy from a republic. These individuals were elected to be our spokespersons. Unfortunately, the reality is not that. The cost of remaining in office dictates that money is the major factor. Major donors, major companies, major industries call the shots much more than individuals or groups of individuals. Political action groups get on the evening news but do not come c lose to the power wielded by lobbyists and their funding sources.
James Madison who wrote much of our Constitution fully understood the difference between a democracy and a republic. Sadly, many citizens today do not.
The republic form of government he and the founders gave us empowers the people with the responsibility to elect representatives at all levels from local government to Washington. Idealistically and no doubt at times naively, we vote for these individuals because they are intelligent men and women who should be able to reason their decisions based on evidence presented to them, their personal understanding of the matter, and also, expectantly, the views of the people who elected them.
The theory is that we should not elect anyone simply because they have taken the party line consistently nor because they passed some litmus test. Madison would recoil at the very thought of that. He envisaged individuals who had the capacity to think and reason and not to be tools of the leadership, irrespective or party allegiance. The House votes on legislation not the parties but sadly this has changed.
Can individual congressmen challenge the current format? Regrettably they and therefore we are often compelled to follow these edicts because the party leadership will summarily withhold funding for those candidates who don’t toe the line or pass these tests. That is why we see the Republican Party crumbling: Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania, Lincoln Chafey in Rhode Island, even General Colin Powell: not acceptable to the Republican “base”. This is the same base that reportedly denied Senator McCain his choice of a running mate and in doing so probably cost him any chance he had of winning. This is the base that will not listen to what even the majority of the people even in their own party say. Rather they listen to demagogues and ideologues.
Litmus tests for Roe v Wade, sanctity of marriage, stimulus packages, global climate change are hauled out and if not agreed without question, the wrath of conservative pundits crashes down on potential candidates. There is a new term: “primary them”: and it is not the sole prerogative of the Republicans. Ask Joe Lieberman.
Even as the minority party, The Republicans would rather fund a primary challenge than support a party incumbent who is opposed to the death penalty or is pro choice. This is the base speaking.; not the vox populi but a small contingent of self appointed individuals who feel they are chosen to lead their party and at some point the country as a whole to a imaginary world of happiness as evidenced by wealth, power and status.
Republicans do not have a corner on this market. Democrats have similar one-sidedness as evidenced by actions of the Majority Leader and Speaker adding hundreds of pages to a healthcare bill before anyone can read them and expecting the faithful to vote on trust while failing to communicate in a meaningful way with the party in opposition.
I purposely did not use the term “loyal opposition” as it does not apply. Neither party appears to be loyal to the people and if not to them, then to whom? Pharmaceutical industry? Labor Unions? Oil and Coal interests? The lists are long but it is from these groups that money, the only fuel that really drives politics, comes. Loyalty to those who elected them takes a very distant back-seat in most processes except when it is election time.
Today the American people, two out of three in some polls, are saying we need meaningful changes in how we pay for healthcare. The Republican Party “base” cries socialism to scare us and sadly it does many. Presidents back to Truman have been trying to change healthcare to no avail. Yet the people entrusted to do this have wonderful policies for themselves, their families, and their staff and they are not losing their health insurance. However, by their adamancy not to modify the current system, they are proving they care little for those who could benefit from universal coverage.
Returning to Madison and his use of Plato as one of the foundations for our government: Plato believed that morality must be based on objective truth and must be reconciled with self-interest. That is, morality must be in the interest of the individual. This simple premise is all but absent in the unbending doctrinal approach of party politics today. Politicians speak of the “Founders” but truly they take little or no notice of what these brilliant men foresaw when they gave us our Republic.
Degeneration of leadership is brought about by leaders focusing on the interest of their own offices and with their own profit and not as both Plato and Madison envisaged with the welfare of the individually governed, the very people that elected them. Further, economic self-interest and political power must be kept separate and not be allowed to work in combination to the disadvantage of the state or the people the state represents.
Harmony, Plato believed, is in the remuneration both of the state and the individual. Conversely, a dictatorial government with a disenfranchised people will fail. Division fostered by the conflict between the interests of individuals with those of the state is the cause of this failure.
History has shown this to be correct. Will our grand experiment be next or are we in truth a work in progress that can self correct. Let us hope it is not too late.
Today, the American people are looking to their government to listen to them, not to lobbyists; not to political donors; not to talk radio pundits; not to party spokespersons but to who the first three words of our constitution proclaim: We The People.
I have never liked the symbolism in deliberative bodies of the term “whips”, it conjuring up Dickensian images of cajoling or bantering members of the House or Senate to vote a certain way because the party demands it. Even worse are those who agree to vote in the proscribed way in exchange for pet projects or bills that benefit a few people who parenthetically may well be major contributors. Inducements like that may come terribly close to corruption to “we the people” but they are merely Washington’s brand of insider trading.
Consider Mr. Nelson of Nebraska and his similarly named colleague from Florida at the critical moment of the healthcare debate. Shameful is not the word for their actions.
Are we really so naïve as to believe that pharmaceutical and petro-chemical companies, insurance and banking interests really believe in the precepts of either major party? Hardly: as their donations indicate: they give money for one thing only: votes.
It is not an accident that our key legislative branch is called the House of Representatives. Indeed it is what separates a democracy from a republic. These individuals were elected to be our spokespersons. Unfortunately, the reality is not that. The cost of remaining in office dictates that money is the major factor. Major donors, major companies, major industries call the shots much more than individuals or groups of individuals. Political action groups get on the evening news but do not come c lose to the power wielded by lobbyists and their funding sources.
James Madison who wrote much of our Constitution fully understood the difference between a democracy and a republic. Sadly, many citizens today do not.
The republic form of government he and the founders gave us empowers the people with the responsibility to elect representatives at all levels from local government to Washington. Idealistically and no doubt at times naively, we vote for these individuals because they are intelligent men and women who should be able to reason their decisions based on evidence presented to them, their personal understanding of the matter, and also, expectantly, the views of the people who elected them.
The theory is that we should not elect anyone simply because they have taken the party line consistently nor because they passed some litmus test. Madison would recoil at the very thought of that. He envisaged individuals who had the capacity to think and reason and not to be tools of the leadership, irrespective or party allegiance. The House votes on legislation not the parties but sadly this has changed.
Can individual congressmen challenge the current format? Regrettably they and therefore we are often compelled to follow these edicts because the party leadership will summarily withhold funding for those candidates who don’t toe the line or pass these tests. That is why we see the Republican Party crumbling: Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania, Lincoln Chafey in Rhode Island, even General Colin Powell: not acceptable to the Republican “base”. This is the same base that reportedly denied Senator McCain his choice of a running mate and in doing so probably cost him any chance he had of winning. This is the base that will not listen to what even the majority of the people even in their own party say. Rather they listen to demagogues and ideologues.
Litmus tests for Roe v Wade, sanctity of marriage, stimulus packages, global climate change are hauled out and if not agreed without question, the wrath of conservative pundits crashes down on potential candidates. There is a new term: “primary them”: and it is not the sole prerogative of the Republicans. Ask Joe Lieberman.
Even as the minority party, The Republicans would rather fund a primary challenge than support a party incumbent who is opposed to the death penalty or is pro choice. This is the base speaking.; not the vox populi but a small contingent of self appointed individuals who feel they are chosen to lead their party and at some point the country as a whole to a imaginary world of happiness as evidenced by wealth, power and status.
Republicans do not have a corner on this market. Democrats have similar one-sidedness as evidenced by actions of the Majority Leader and Speaker adding hundreds of pages to a healthcare bill before anyone can read them and expecting the faithful to vote on trust while failing to communicate in a meaningful way with the party in opposition.
I purposely did not use the term “loyal opposition” as it does not apply. Neither party appears to be loyal to the people and if not to them, then to whom? Pharmaceutical industry? Labor Unions? Oil and Coal interests? The lists are long but it is from these groups that money, the only fuel that really drives politics, comes. Loyalty to those who elected them takes a very distant back-seat in most processes except when it is election time.
Today the American people, two out of three in some polls, are saying we need meaningful changes in how we pay for healthcare. The Republican Party “base” cries socialism to scare us and sadly it does many. Presidents back to Truman have been trying to change healthcare to no avail. Yet the people entrusted to do this have wonderful policies for themselves, their families, and their staff and they are not losing their health insurance. However, by their adamancy not to modify the current system, they are proving they care little for those who could benefit from universal coverage.
Returning to Madison and his use of Plato as one of the foundations for our government: Plato believed that morality must be based on objective truth and must be reconciled with self-interest. That is, morality must be in the interest of the individual. This simple premise is all but absent in the unbending doctrinal approach of party politics today. Politicians speak of the “Founders” but truly they take little or no notice of what these brilliant men foresaw when they gave us our Republic.
Degeneration of leadership is brought about by leaders focusing on the interest of their own offices and with their own profit and not as both Plato and Madison envisaged with the welfare of the individually governed, the very people that elected them. Further, economic self-interest and political power must be kept separate and not be allowed to work in combination to the disadvantage of the state or the people the state represents.
Harmony, Plato believed, is in the remuneration both of the state and the individual. Conversely, a dictatorial government with a disenfranchised people will fail. Division fostered by the conflict between the interests of individuals with those of the state is the cause of this failure.
History has shown this to be correct. Will our grand experiment be next or are we in truth a work in progress that can self correct. Let us hope it is not too late.
Today, the American people are looking to their government to listen to them, not to lobbyists; not to political donors; not to talk radio pundits; not to party spokespersons but to who the first three words of our constitution proclaim: We The People.
No comments:
Post a Comment