OK, so I recently opened an ill-advised can of worms voicing, in a roundabout way, my displeasure with Congress's recent passing of the monstrous health care bill. I must have not been very clear on my actual point, because my liberal friends (you know who you are) have been posting long, admittedly well-reasoned, but point-missingly long responses. I'd like to spell out then my actual point.
But first let's just agree that conservatives are feckless, boorish philistines, and liberals are erudite and compassionate literati. Kieth Olbermann and Rachel Maddow say it's so, so it must be so. If you are thinking about posting any more responses along these lines, you needn't bother. Yes, yes, Sarah Palin is like a barbie doll; Dick Cheney is Satan's second cousin. Barrack Obama gives us all tingles up our legs when he speaks, Chris Matthews, and my, isn't Nancy Pelosi lovely.
Also, let's agree that Republicans have done unsavory things in the past as well. Does it make it OK for the Democrats to carry on as they have? I'm not convinced, but OK...let's table that discussion. Everything wrong with our country up to this point is George W. Bush's and Dick Cheney's fault. OK?
Here's what I was trying to say in my Facebook post: Our Congress has become so disengaged from the American people whom they are supposed to be serving, that what we need is a good house (and Senate) cleaning. My proposal is that we need to elect 535 honest Americans who will lay out their positions plainly, promise to serve exactly one term in whichever chamber and then go back to private life. They are then unconcerned with re-election in two or six years, and thus more able to actually do what their constituents elected them to do. And here's what seems to be the crux of misunderstanding: I don't care which party, if any, these 535 people belong to.
Imagine this scenario, for example. Your congressional district has two candidates, and they stand up before you and your neighbors. Candidate A:
"Hello. My name is Phil S. Tine. I run the Lucifer Insurance Agency, which specializes in Evil Insurance. I stand for minimal government intrusion into your lives, and will only vote for bills that enable you to make your own way through life. I believe the powers of the Federal Government should be limited to those explicitly granted to it, and those expressly denied to the states, by the Constitution. I believe you should have the right to choose where your children go to school without being penalized by taxes. I believe private companies should remain private, and you have the right to run your business the way you like. If you elect me to the House of Representatives I will apply these principles of personal freedom to the greatest extent possible for two years, and then go back to my insurance agency without a further peep. Thank you."
And then Candidate B:
"Like, good evening, man. I'm Lucky Dreadlocks and I run the Moonbeam Hackey Sack and Birkenstock Co-op and Afghan Restaurant (That's some good labna!). I believe in a socialist nanny state that takes all of your money and spreads it around evenly to everyone. Don't worry about stuff if I am elected, because the government is your Daddy and will take care of you. Even though this sort of system has never, ever worked anywhere ever, I'm pretty sure with a little wishing on a star and creative arithmetic we can make it work. I believe I and my liberal cronies know better than you how to live your life and raise your kids, so we'll tell you what to do every step of the way. I believe the best way to deal with terrorists and criminals is have a big group hug. So sit back, watch some cartoons, and drink some 'herbal' tea (which I'll push to legalize straight away). Vote for me, dudes, and I'll spend two years--no more and no less--turning America into the East Germany we've always dreamed of!"
Now, you and I go vote for whichever of these people appeals the most to us. Obviously, I'll vote for Phil, and you'll probably vote for Lucky. That's fine. All I want is for all of our representatives to tell us plainly and honestly what they stand for, and if we buy it, go to Washington and do those things that they said they would do without succumbing to political skulduggery and lobbyist bribery, and then go back home to their regular lives. I don't care how much previous political experience they have, as long as they are honest and have common sense. I don't want them to get a year in and abandon their responsibilities in order to run for some other office. Is that too much to ask?
Moving….
13 years ago
2 comments:
I get your point. I'm just not sure I buy it. ;-) My point is it is difficult to tell whether conservatives are genuinely concerned with our government becoming disengaged from the American people or merely upset over losing recent elections. "Far left" folk such as Nader have been talking about the growing corporate influence on American politics for a LONG time. They have called for campaign finance reform, changes in our electoral processes, and the inclusion of parties OTHER than the Republicans and Democrats in election debates. Unfortunately, not many people have listened...why not?
I find it interesting you bring up Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow. I don't think anything they say is so, because they say it is so...anymore than I think anything Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Lou Dobbs, and Rush Limbaugh is true because they say it is true. I will say I think the far-right "news" shows are full of more hateful, vitriolic, name-calling nonsense than Olbermann and Maddow, but I don't really watch much TV and admittedly I am left-leaning to begin with...
At any rate, I've actually spent the last couple of weeks listening to Fox News and Rush Limbaugh because my girlfriend's Uncle was doing restoration work on their vacation home (he is a HUGE Rush fan). It did, however, make me wonder...how much of it is spreading non-factual nonsense? Is the goal of these shows to inform or misinform?
Whereas I can appreciate your sense of humor and sarcasm (and part of the reason why I miss spending time with you and Catherine), at times during the last presidential election it seemed that you and Catherine might actually believe that Obama was a Kenyan, Muslim, communist, terrorist with Maoist ties secretly plotting to take over our country. I don't believe that is true anymore than I think Bush and Cheney are spawn of Satan.
My point here is there is a LOT of noise out there from both sides, but I think (at the moment) more from the far right...once again, not because they are concerned with our government becoming "disengaged from the American people", but because they have lost recent elections.
I bring up Bush/Cheney (and the Republicans) to illustrate my point, not because I think they screwed up the country (you already know I think that), but because I didn't hear many (if any) conservatives complaining about "disengaged government" during the last 8 years when they were ramming through legislation. Hence, I find it hard to believe that conservatives truly feel the way government officials are elected, for example, needs to be changed; but rather, they are merely upset about not being in a position of power.
In 2000, for example, when Bush was elected with LESS than a majority of the popular vote, nothing was done about changing the electoral process. Therefore, we still have a "democratic" voting process in which the presidential vote of people in some states seems a whole lot less important than the vote of a person in Florida (for example). How can we claim to be a model for democracy across the globe when you can win a presidential election without a majority of the popular vote? Once again, I don't recall many conservatives being worried about a majority of the American people feeling they were being ignored then....so why now?
When anti-war protests were going on during the Bush years it was "un-American", but when tea-baggers protest it is "patriotic"? Conservatives can't have it both ways. So, you will have to excuse me if I seem a bit skeptical of all this talk from conservatives of "disengaged government". It often sounds a whole lot more like sour grapes than genuine concern over the way our government works.
Having said all that...you know I agree entirely with you on your basic point (we've discussed this before)...that we would do a whole lot better with "ordinary people" such as you and I in office than career politicians.
First of all, Republicans certainly have no monopoly on hateful speech and hypocrisy. Exhibit A: the term "tea-baggers." That's not the issue. Also Obama is a socialist: he says socialist things ("Spreading the wealth around is better for everyone."), he surrounds himself with socialists ( Carol Browner, Van Jones)...it's not a jab, it's just a label. I'm a capitalist, conservative, Christian, husband, father, etc. The other labels I don't remember using, but it's beside the point.
The problem is that every poll regarding public support for health care gives the "against" side a majority. They vary on how much of a majority, but it seems to be at least in the mid-50 percent ballpark. So when 51 percent of the House votes in favor of a bill only 45 percent (at best) of the people support, something is wrong. Either Congressional districts need to be redrawn, or, more likely, at least some representatives are completely ignoring what their constituents desire. I am sure Republicans have been guilty of this as well, but that doesn't justify make this case. America isn't the mob, which governs by a system of payback (at least it shouldn't be). It should never be acceptable from either party to egregiously violate the will of the people. So while I can appreciate the schadenfreude of seeing the Republicans get their comeuppance, is it worth bankrupting the country, alienating the citizenry, and trashing the Constitution?
Post a Comment