As a conservative, I have one partisan choice in America for the leadership I'd like to see representing my views in government: Vote Republican. I consider myself a fairly regular guy in many areas, however, when it comes to community activism and governmental involvement, I'm rather "freakish," I suppose.
I like to get involved - walk the talk. I like to support candidates I believe in.
I used to steer clear of politics and involvement, due to the perception that the system was broken, corrupt, immovable, and frankly not all that interested in what a "Joe Citizen" had to say. Well, I've never been one to accept preconceived notions without giving it a shot myself, and digging in. So I did.
I've run campaigns, worked on legislation, helped on several causes, and you know what? After fifteen years of it? The preconceived notion was essentially dead-on target. LOL.
While I'm no fan of the Democratic Party, I don't have first-hand experience working within it. I do, however, have rather extensive experience on the Republican-side. Hey, my experience is my own; I wouldn't want to keep anyone from getting into the party of their choice, or go independent. I'll still be involved in one way or another as a conservative, but for me, my Republican days are over.
No political organizaton is perfect of course. They're just like - well, like people. They "sin" too. Key is, how do they recover? How do they make good on their misgivings and move forward? After over fifteen years in this elephant tar pit, I must say, seems to me the GOP is making no progress whatsoever. In fact, due to the leadership the Republican "Corporation" has supported (and parties are, by the way, legal corporate entities), we're losing ground - fast.
I was on another blog, and someone said "things won't change until the party self-destructs." Perhaps that's true. After all, it took the Civil War for the Whig Party to go away over an issue as important as slavery.
I just wonder though, is the Republican Party self-destructing? I've never been one to find myself too far out ahead of the curve on many issues - perhaps just a little farther than the middle ground. I quit the Republican Party. I look around, and I'm not alone. Not by a long-shot. I'm still a conservative. If someone wants a "label" I'd say I'm an Independent Conservative.
Heck, I think independence starts with the person. Once we label ourselves R or D, we're shackled, folks...but that's for another article.
For now, I wanted to list some bulletpoints which conservatives (and former Republicans like myself) consider when thinking through whether this Republican Corporation called a "Party" which is supposed to be attracting the best and brightest conservative leaders, as well as helping to create the most progressive conservative policy, has performed effectively:
- The utter mismanagement of the Vietnam War and Republicans' cowardly caving-in and departure of American troops, leading to the mass murder of millions of civilians in that country and surrounding region.
- The resignation of a proven criminally corrupt Republican Vice President, Spiro Agnew.
- Watergate: A Republican President, Richard Nixon, who committed criminal activities in order to gain unfair advantage over his Democratic adversary, Robert F. Kennedy. Nixon ordered the break-in to the Watergate Hotel to gather campaign secrets.
- The subsequent impeachment of a proven-corrupt Republican President, Richard Nixon.
- Republican Gerald Ford, chosen by Nixon as the replacement Vice President to criminal Republican Spiro Agnew, then PARDONS Richard Nixon for his criminal activity. This proved to many that PARTISANSHIP, not CITIZENSHIP is truly the source of power in the United States. The guilty party: Republicans. The People were never given the chance to see that they, not the President, would be considered the leadership of the Constitutionally-created government. This proved to many that Jefferson's words, "We the People," was for all intents and purposes in the real world, a myth.
Due to this pardon, justice was never served. This pardon set a precedent (which has now been repeated in the Scooter Libby case) and it sent a clear message to others that immoral or criminal activities will not only be accepted as legitimate by Republicans, but it will be publicly and arrogantly "wiped clean" through the stroke of another Republican's pen. The same Constitution which is to be granting the People the power over its government has, ironically granted the Executive the power of pardon, denying the People their power.
(And partisans WONDER why the People don't vote?) - The utter failure of a Republican-led administration to listen to intelligence, which ultimately helped to allow for the atrocities on 9-11.
- The totally inept Republican-led war strategy in Iraq, fueled in great part by a Republican President who was hell-bent on revenge against Saddam Hussein. One's natural human response overcame proper policy, and in government, this is unacceptable. This is why in police cases, officers are removed from the case if personal interests come into play in decision-making for the greater good of society.
- The utter failure of MANY governmental departments under the leadership of a Republican Executive. FEMA's inexcusable inhumane response to Katrina continues with ineptitude and discourse, corruption and total lack of energy and mission, even today.
- Florida's "hanging chad" election. A Republican wins in that Republican's BROTHER'S state, making an utter MOCKERY of the United States' most important tool which is to give the People power over our leaders: our ELECTION ITSELF. This shows the utter arrogance that PARTISANS show toward its own citizens. We are not subject as in a Monarchy; we are voting citizens in a Democracy. Yet, Republicans are clearly satisfied with the 1950s technology we're employing to ensure fair elections. Hell, they benefit from the lack of 60 year-old approach.
- The so-called "Patriot Act," and its suspension of Constitutional Law and rights of the People to free speech, privacy and protections, including Attorney General Gonzalez's outright disregard for Habeas Corpus.
- Torturing of enemy POWs, and the total disregard for international treaties and the Geneva Accord.
- The demonstrated failure over SEVEN YEARS of the Republican President and the Republican Party to deliver substantive legislation and policy, with common sense solutions on illegal immigration, health care, social security, welfare reform, abortion and respect for life, marriage and civil unions, gambling, business and corporate ethics, energy independence, compensation and medical care for military veterans, space exploration, technology evolution, education and college reform and affordability, agricultural re-deployment toward biofuel creation...I could go ON AND ON. The Republicans have utterly failed in these departments, and meanwhile, continue with a total disconnect from the American People on these issues.
- A TOTAL inability of Republicans to connect with the media and generate positive relations with the People. Rather, they call them "Liberal Media" and shun them? Well, why should the media HAVE a conservative, or middle-of-the-road approach if they are treated NOT as an extension of the Peoples' right to information, but as the enemy? Republicans are NOT OPEN SOURCE. They are colluders and require confidentiality in order to do their deeds in the shadows. Contrary to their country club elitist thinking, this mentality UNDERMINES legitimate CONSERVATIVE efforts to achieve important advances in America.
- The total ineffectiveness of the Republican Corporation to attract young conservative voters with the energy and drive to make positive change. Why? because of Republicans' rather inept track record at attracting and recruiting the BEST LEADERS in America to participate in the political process, and lead.
If that's not "self-destruction," I don't know what is.
Now, to top it all off, if we complete the historical re-visit from Nixon-Agnew days, and Dick Cheney does in fact face impeachment, will THAT be the catalyst needed by conservatives to finally wake up and realize the Republican Corporation that is supposed to be representing their interests is totally impotent?
So, I'll end this with a question, which will sound a bit naive, but I truly do want to know what you think:
People stop BUYING from corporations which cheat their customers. The Political Parties' "customers" are you and me (right?). Why do "We the People" allow PARTISAN corporations to survive and prosper if they've proven time and time again they are inept, corrupt, and are in reality COMPETING with the PEOPLE for power, rather than protecting us?
Why in this day and age of internet communications and the true "democratization" of information, aren't newer, better partisan corporations (parties) able to gain a stong foothold, especially given the utter corruption of the American Political process by the two current mega-corporations (Republican and Democrat)?
I look forward to hearing from you on this.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 72
However, when you look over your career, the reasons you ultimately choose a new path isn't due to the positives - it's due to the issues which added up when you connected the dots and realized this isn't for me.
It's not a propaganda piece I'm writing; I'm certainly no Democrat. I am, however, a concerned American, and one who would like to see folks be far more OUTRAGED that the People don't have the power that was granted them in the Constitution to ensure the PARTIES are kept in check.
Carol - I liked Reagan, too, but as the years go by I have come to see that some of his most influential policies have not been good for the country.
I can agree that in every institution there are flawed people but to point to the institution as the problem itself is blind bigotry.
As the guy who made that comment that we will not see a successful 3rd party until one of the Big Two self-destructs, I thank you for your post. You contribute a fairly impressive list there of Republican errors or self serving acts over the past decades.
I find myself in a weird place sometimes on politics. In terms of social policy I am sometimes to the left of the Dems, and yet i sometimes feel that on fiscal responsibility I am way to the right of the Republicans. I am at a loss to figure out how we are really going to fix our lack of long range thinking in this country. Pols tend to think about one week ahead, and our problems have taken decades to create and will take decades to resolve.
Global Warming is actually high on my last, and I am sure that is anathema to many readers. And yet there are actually many leaders in the Republican Party who are interested in taking action on it- they just are not in national power (McCain and Schwarzenneger)
If I had alot of character and believed in the golden rule, I would admit the long list of corrupt acts and bad judgment executed by dems over the past decades. Maybe I will work on that for a post of my own.
Excellent analytical commentary!
Being a former Democrat and now a centrist independent I'm reluctant to condemn quite as many things about the Republican party as you.
First, don't blame the Republicans for Viet Nam. The course was cast there before Nixon was elected and though Nixon thought he could change things, the country didn't want that war and wouldn't have it crammed down their throats any longer. To prosecute a war you must have the support of the majority of the citizens for an extended period of time.
The pardon of Nixon by Ford took an act of courage by Ford. He was asked in his nomination hearings for VP about a pardon for Nixon if it came to that and he stated that he didn't think the people would stand for it. But as president, his first obligation was to the duties of that office and he could not get them done as long as this mess was interfering. He knew it could, and did, cost him the presidency. He did the right thing. Bushes actions with Libby don't even come close to this scenario.
One thing you omitted though was the tragic case of the Iran/Contra scandal and the criminal actions of Poindexter and Ollie North. North received immunity to testify before congress so he got off but when I hear someone call him a great American I have to add great American criminal. I doubt Regan knew of this action, after all, they didn't wake him to tell him we were shooting down planes. He testified he didn't recall and I believe that was the truth.
I agree, this sins of the Democratic party are quite lengthy as well. Perhaps there are sins of combined parties such as NAFTA and GATT.
And the general population does not, regardless of what you might think, ever vote a president into office. Only the electoral college can do that. You and I are not smart enough to know who should be president!
In our state the Republicans have just sued to close the Republican primaries so independents can't vote in it. You'll have to be a registered Republican. Since most office holders in this state are Republican (all but one) if this suit is successful, I'll have to become a registered Republican because I want a vote on the candidate.
deficits in American history (to that date) making proper business regulation, control
over the environment, prison construction, crime control and other domestic needs
out of reach. He wasn't one bit shy, though about tossing our tax dollars around to
finance a war against a legitimately elected government in Nicaragua, and wanted to send our US troops as well. Luckily, the Congress said no way (we could use that Congress right now).
Another thing Reagan promised (and didn't deliver) was an end to reverse discrimination in affirmative action programs. No, AA kept rolling right along.
I'd say Republicans (on all govt. levels), have been blowing it on the minimum wage issue for decades. As a former business owner, I remember my
biggest problem. It wasn't how much I had to pay my employees. It was the lack of money in the pockets of my prospective customers, and their subsequent
inability to buy what I was trying to sell (even though they clearly wanted to). And why were they so unable ? Because some one was out there paying them minimum wage, or barely more, that's why.
Right now, the minimum wage shouldn't be a dime less than $12/hour.
Reagan also opened the door for 3 million illegal aliens (who should have been
deported). He gave amnesty to them and then didn't follow up with enforcement of
the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli bill.
Lastly, the economy after 11 years of Reagan-Bush took a nose dive. I remember seeing "Not Accepting Applications" signs in the windows of MacDonalds and Burger King. They each had a stack of hundreds - why accept more ? I spent the whole
year of 1991 looking for a job and never got one. It was as bad as 1974 (the Nixon-Ford era) when a newspaper headline read "Unemployment Highest Since 1939".
I think the Republicans have never understood that it is money in the pockets of the working class that strengthens an economy. Poorer people spend money in their local communites, wheras rich people spend a very high proportion of their bucks outside the United States. That is harmful to your economy in the same way that illegal aliens' remittances are currently raking us over the coals for $45 Billion
a year lost out of our economy.
deficits in American history """"""""
Robert what was the budget in 1980 and what was it in 1988? When you look it up and see that tax cuts actually brought more revenue into federal coffers and it was government spending that produced deficits you can kindly shut up and go away.
Personally I think this article says a lot. And yes, if you were to go back and look at Democrats you'd find some of the same. However, I am not saying that it would be quite as bad. I think government in general has been becoming increasingly more corrupt since Nixon and that the trend shows no signs of slowing or stopping. The bottom line politically is that the voters don't count any more. All that counts is who has the most money and who owns which senator and/or representative.
The people spoke in Nov. and we were ignored. I wonder if anyone will care enough to speak again in Nov 2008, or if everyone will look at how much good it did them in 2006 and just stay home.
The GOP, as a party, has two guiding principles: 1.) it is dedicated to protecting the interests of wealth white Christian males; and 2.) it believes Government is wrong and/or evil.
If one views the GOP in this context, one can easily see why the GOP always fails. After all, would you hire someone into an organization if that person's stated belief is that the organization is inherently evil? Second, it's really tough to run a country when your sole constituency is a relatively small part of the population.
Today however, I just want to say ONE thing, or rather, ask ONE question.
John, will you be my president???
I have come to believe it is time to for a party "of the People, by the People and for the People" and take our government back.
I am late to the discussion so I will only offer this to your original article.
You fit my stereotype of a Republican, you are driven by the common good and when you see those who purport to have the same goal succumb to the self delusion invincibility because of the power you have disavow them and publically proclaim your mea culpa.
My stereotype of a Democrat is the lust for power, to do everything they can when they get and when caught to cry and beg for forgiveness, and all "good" Democrats forgive them so they can stay in power.
Changing a Party is very difficult. The Party, either Party, does not have a binding culture and a core that can set and reinforce a new direction for the organization. It is made up of a diversity of people that ebb and flow with the issues. In the more formal organizations of industry and government there is a core that sets the direction and will be there long enough to reinforce and see the change. That isn't there with the Parties, they have one function and that is as a conduit for issues (taxes, war, abortion, minimum wage) that can be made of interest for the electorate. When an issue burns out then those people fade from the scene and the ones carrying the torch for the next issue step into the driver's seat. The long-term politicians are along for the ride and change with the issues.
If you want to see change in the Party you need to identify a set of core values (well defined) not issues, that will not be changed by issues, and you need a means to measure the adherence and impact of those core values. And this must be clear to all so each person can measure performance and hold those "driving the bus" accountable. The core values describe the goal or success and the metrics help you know when you are drifting away from the path to that goal.
Do you know what the core values of the Republican Party should be and how to measure them? If so, then you need to get them public and start recruiting people who will support them becoming part of the Party governance.
What happens though, when:
1) the rest of the crew is rowing in a different direction;
2) Rather than stepping in and siding with those core values, the leadership of the crew - at ALL LEVELS (local, state, and national) has repeatedly allowed this for years, and in fact, is part of the problem;
3) There is an opportunity for NEW leadership representing these SAME CORE VALUES (conservative values) to step up to start a NEW organization?
I know plenty of fantastic liberal friends who share my frustration with their Party as well. They do not feel truly represented, and in fact, feel manipulated as well.
You say: //My stereotype of a Democrat is the lust for power, to do everything they can when they get and when caught to cry and beg for forgiveness, and all "good" Democrats forgive them so they can stay in power.//
Gee, I was going to say the same thing about republicans, though it does also apply to some democrats. John, and others here summed it up very well. As for holding those who are "driving the bus" accountable -- well, that's what most of us are trying to do, from both sides. When you use the word "metrics," methinks you're a CON.
By all objective standards, tax cuts do increase revenue, but never enough to recoup the uncollected taxes. By your standards, if we eliminated taxes altogether, the government would be rolling in money! I'm sure even you can see the fallacy in that.
Taxes are solely for the purpose of funding the government. When revenues cover the budget with some additional to pay on our long term debt, the national debt, then revenues are correct and taxes are just right. If there is still money left over there should be tax cuts. That is responsible management, just like any business or home must maintain.
Tax cuts are usually a manner of pandering to certain special interests. They generate contributions to campaigns or purchase votes depending on the case, but they are still simply pandering and therefore unethical. You know in your heart that the tax cuts we've had are simply wrong!
Jeff, statements like "you can kindly shut up and go away." are rude, insensitive, confrontational and not the work of a meaningful commenter and unworthy of you! If you feel that way about the people here perhaps this is not a good forum for you to visit.
I believe that everyone here is entitled to an opinion and to state that opinion openly. I certainly don't agree with all of them and will respond to try and correct mis-communications and that is the fun of this forum. Not telling them to shut up and go away.
Carolyn,
I won't lie about it either. I will become a registered Republican. Who I vote for in the general election is my own business. But I've been voting since 1960 and I don't intend to be beaten out of the election process.
I think the PEOPLE have to rise up and put a STOP to Partisan power by this duopoly. Just like any anti-trust litigation, perhaps it's time to break up this duopoly and give the CONSUMERS a choice once again as to who shall be our leadership, and what policies we shall follow.
Power has corrupted both the Democratic and Republican Party. Yet we all end up having to choose the lesser of the two EVILS to represent us?
How BACKWARDS is that? We can DO BETTER!
If any corporation selling goods had such a terrible track record of how they CHEAT their customers, they would NOT be in business long!
Yet, in this stranglehold system WE the PEOPLE PAY FOR THEIR PARTISAN PRIMARIES?
We PAY for our Representatives to spend time in PARTISAN strategy sessions and caucuses, rather than making PROGRESS on key legislation?
We ALLOW our Representatives in Congress to make the MOST important decisions as to the future of our country, our People and our planet, based upon PARTISAN PERSUASION, as opposed to LISTENING TO THE VOTERS, let alone following their God-given instincts and judgment?
We ALLOW our JUDGES to run under a PARTISAN banner?
Folks, PARTIES have their place, but not in the back pocket of our elected leaders, nor vica-versa. They are nothing more than MAJOR LEAGUE LOBBYING ORGANIZATIONS! THEY'RE PACS! They play, we PAY!
We have the separation of Church and State. It's time we create legislation and amend our Constitution to start the process of Separation of Party and State.
Here are some suggestions I'd make to lessen the power of the Parties, and return them to the People:
- We won't pay for your primaries. That's all YOUR cost.
- We won't allow your Party BOSS to select and appoint replacement officials based upon the party of the previous office holder; rather, we MUST hold a new election. This is the SINGLE MOST CHERISHED POWER of the PEOPLE, and it must NOT be handed off to a Party boss.
- Pardons will continue, however, the President may NOT pardon present or past employees, contractors, friends or relatives - period.
- There WILL be term limits for ALL Representatives. There will be NO SUCH THING as "career politicians" any more.
- Impose the Power of the People to hold Recall Elections for all elected officials. We hired them; we can fire them too.
- No campaign advisers nor political consultants or volunteers may enter the White House, except for certain specified and limited SOCIAL visits. Publicly-paid for communication devices are off-limits to political parties, advisers and partisan consultants.
Because they forgot HOW to connect to the People - the moms and dads and the college students. Getting them OUTRAGED and poking fun in disrespect of our Presidency is hardly the best way to RECRUIT intelligent, active people who CARE about politics. Listening to the voters and REACTING to them based upon that time spent, versus seeing whose bank account is bigger (like comparing one's male-ness) will serve NEW AGE POLITICIANS far better.
It's not all about funding; it's about the fundamentals, and most politicians have utterly forgotten the fundamentals, and accepted MONEY from those who can afford to buy influence.
It is important for the People to unite as CITIZENS to move FORWARD; not rely on so many unknown behind-the -scenes PARTISANS who SLOW PROGRESS, spread hate and intolerance.
Interesting commentary you gave Duane. I got a "C" in Poly-Sci, but it fascinated the hell out of me. I probably argued with my prof too much to earn a better grade.
;)
OK, I'll shh for now...love to hear more for y'all. I'm learning a lot!
This is a sleight of hand by political campaigns which happens across the board. Problem is, the pol's getting the $$$ are now beholden to the ones who GIVE. It's incest among political camps, and it's wrong.
501(c)(3) organizations are BARRED from donating to OTHER 501(c)(3)s by Federal law/mandate for this same reason.
If I give $1000 of my money, tax-deductible, to the "Academy of the Arts" and they turn around and donate part, or all of that money to the "Extremist Islam Brothers," well now, that wouldn't be right, would it?
1) It was MY WISH to support the arts, not another non-profit.
2) It puts those organizations in highly influential position - one may be highly charismatic, and quite able to generate money; the other may not have the staff, the charisma; the tools to generate donations. However, they become beholden to the successful fundraiser. Not good.
You did good by leaving this republibot party. After all, Bu$h isn't a TRUE Republican. He's a RINO. If you wanted to label him, I would label him a corporatist/fascist. As I have said in many other posts, he doesn't care about America. He cares about the world. Or more accurately, control of it. History has proven that , You can't take over and control it through military action. But you can through economic control. But the multi national corporations have to be bigger and stronger than they are now. Thanks King George Bu$h I. They are well on their way now.
Ron,
You can't get rid of lobbyists. They have just as much right to LOBBY the government as anyone else does. If you get rid of them, you get rid of ALL the lobbyists, and some do very good work. No, what we really need is legislators that have the spine to stand up to them and say no sometimes. And the line item veto has been ruled unConstitutional. It's Congress that makes laws, not the president. But again, it to the legislators that this falls. MAKE BETTER LAWS. Make laws that aren't unConstitutional.
Now the term limit thing I can get behind. But the major change will happen when ALL Americans START to get involved and really know what OUR government is doing to US. I'm afraid this will never happen. To many people NOT willing to admit they,re wrong on both sides of the isle.
LOOK UP Unity08.com maybe there's still a chance to save America.
You've touched on so many things that I've quandered and been uncomfortable with. I also am the offspring of Republicans (the Rockefeller kind; who also seem to have become lost) and I now identify myself as an independent moderate.
The problem I've always seen within the Republican Party is that: (a) they are so caught up in being driven that they become blind and rude to others and the world around them; they show no respect nor consideration for anyone that doesn't share and work doggedly towards 'their' views; (b) throughout the ranks, their seems to be a near palpable fear for not towing whatever the current party line is, or doing as party leaders request, and of the leaders themselves.
Considering the actions Republican leaders have taken towards their junior party members whenever conflicts or controversies have arisen, the fear is justified. Careers and the lives of politicians can be ruined by their bosses; if those bosses so choose.
For the good of the people, partisanship should be checked at the door to the office which an individual is elected to.
I would like to say that I prefer puch card ballots to computer ballots. At least with the punch card I know that there's a hard record of my vote. This is not true with computer voting.
In last year's election cycle my touch-screen computer's printer wasn't working right. My vote and the votes of all the people before me were not recorded to the paper tape, only to the electronic data card which does not fill me with confidence.
Kinda like Fascism, huh?
Why is it we can have ATM cards and credit cards, and rely on technology to get our bank account right every time, and spit out a receipt, but we can't create a simple voting booth to do the same, and we're afraid to do so?
Americans COULD vote once a month, or MORE, on important referendum issues, for instance. START with local straw polls and voting on local issues which affect us; and over the years, implement a national voting system via an electronic voter ID card.
CUT OUT THE MIDDLEMAN (Parties)!
Nothing about Rumsfeld dealings with Saddam Hussein during his Reagan years, facilitating chemical weapons and cluster bombs sales?
Nothing about the 1992 George H.W. Bush pardon of 6 of the key players in Iran-Contra, a few of which have gone on to lower and dirtier things under George W. Bush? Or the negotiation and initialization of NAFTA?
I'm all for anyone bailing from the Republican party, but get your facts straight.
Perpetuating the myth that we were winning in Vietnam, if we had just hung in a little longer is something that seriously depletes your credibility. As in Iraq, the people of the United States had turned against the war because, as in Iraq, it was a war we entered into and escalated on trumped up, false pretenses. No such war can ever be won because the will of the American people, who are a moral forthright people, will not stand for our soldiers being maimed and dying for half-truths. The Congress did not "cave in" to pressure. They did their job - which is to do what their constituents tell them to do. That is a lesson that this Congress has yet to learn, but they will.
As far as millions dying after we left Vietnam, the Khmer Rouge was a Cambodian insurgency that recruited the bulk of its support from the same villages that we were carpet bombing. Led by the murderous Pol Pot, they were able to carry out the "purification" of other Cambodians because their forces swelled with angry villagers, left with nothing after their homes and lives were destroyed by the occupying American presence. This was Cambodian on Cambodian violence - an internal "civil war" stirred up by an outside invader. Sound familiar? Should we have stayed to mitigate the violence? I don't see how it would have been possible without a massive incursion of ground troops into Cambodia. And by that time, Americans had had enough.
I said nothing of us "winning" in Vietnam. Democrats got us in; Republicans saw to it we fled, leaving millions to die. Neither is admirable.
There is no true "winner" in war. It's not a game.
I use Bill Clinton as a simple example for the Democrats, after his seduction because he could an all other associated activites, he simply cried and beg for forgiveness and he was forgiven and more of a celebraty then ever, I use Congress LIvingston as a simple example for the Repubilicans, he had his affair and after being caught resigned and has disapperred. If you need more there is Congressman Franks, DC Mayor Berry, and in a few years a certain lawyer Nifong. The Republicans that have been caught are harder to remember because they were tossed aside by the party members. Even Gingrich with his many years still hasn't got into the party structure, he is simply being kept visible by the media.
I don't doubt if I am a CON, I think I am too much of a relist (willing to choose the lesser of the evils). Howevr, I do carry my personal values into deciding the political issues. I was raised a "yellow dog Democrat", but given personal worth.
AS far as metrics, my experiecne has show me that what you measure is more likely to be improve/conrolled. If you what to hold people or an organziation accountable (or they hold themsleves accountable) develop a way to measure that all people can track and you will see the changes.
What criteria do you use for holding them accountable?
John C.
I have to admit I fit the Republican sterotype, I lean heavier on the moral trust issue then on screwing up how a job is done. Once a person has shown how they are willing to break their trust with their family, how can I ever believe they would care one wit about the trust of the public. Making wrong decisions or listening to the wrong people are lessons they can learn from so there is hope.
I must admit I am struggling with whether to get involve in the local party, they surely don;t try to recruit new memebers. And nationally they only want your money.
By training I am an "Egkineer" so poly sci instrucors never accepted my type. My politics are all my own, though as a kid I was passing out literature and did see one election won by 6 votes where 50 dead people voted.
The parties do provide a service, the screen the field first by party politics, second by campagn moneys, and third by their selcetion process. Without that process we would never get any idea about a consdidate past a campagn flier.
Randall,
I agree with term limits, 8 and 8 for House and Senate, and line item veto. The electoral college is as valid today as when it was established. This is a whole country of diverse interests, and if it were eliminate there would only be campagning in a half dozen states and the rest of the country would be ignored, why was time in Iowa when California would get a better return.
A balance budget is that destructive, there is a level of debt that can be sustained and will not harm and can contrinue to enhance our economy, it is the lack of accountablility and measures of value gained from what is spent that is the problem.
John a good article and and a good effort to keep it on focus, thanks.
If we wish to continue as a nation under the Constituition then we have to rid ourselves of those in the White House and Congress en mass and replace them with, neither Democrats or Republicans, a middle of the road party.
I agree wholeheartedly with the elimination of the electoral college. It is an anachronism which has served it's intended purpose and is no longer of service to this nation.
I'm not so sure about term limits as I believe that would mean eight years as senator, then eight years as representative and then run for the presidency. Also, I don't think we want to loose altogether, the institutional memory of either house.
The idea of putting referendums to the people might be OK but understand this is a move from representative democracy to direct democracy and will best serve the loudest, most in-your-face agitators and leave little an impotent representation for the masses of ordinary people who are not actively involved in causes.
We shouldn't need a balanced budget amendment. I have no problem with one except if we are going to mess with the constitution it should be to eliminate the electoral college. Most people don't know exactly what the college is, their responsibilities, their freedom or even who the electors are. Let's give it up!
As far as choosing the lesser of evils, that is always the result of an election between two persons. If we had a different type system and had run off elections, they would boil down to, for most persons, picking the lesser of two evils. I don't personally see a reasonable alternative unless the rest of the nation would just leave it up to me to pick one!
I certainly agree with John, there are no true winners in a war! Actually, thats not totally true, the industries which supplied the equipment and munitions for the winning side are definitely winners. However the people never win a war.
Lobbying is a problem but lobbyists bring expertise to the congress which it so desperately needs. How else would congress write a meaningful bill involving such things as nuclear science? The only official with that kind of knowledge was Carter and he didn't write bills, but he was a nuclear scientist. Strict regulations need to be enacted about where lobbying can occur and eliminating all gifts, incentives, etc. from lobbyists to congress persons. Perhaps also limiting how many lobbyists can represent a single corporation or trade. There were over 1000 lobbyists working on the Medicare Part D legislation! Your congress people had to feel overwhelmed. I think it should be a felony for a congressman to accept as much as a cigarette from a lobbyist!
We need to get the money our of electing our congress people. This is the big one! I don't care how honest a congressman is, by the time he is elected he has had to suck up to enough moneyed interests that it has become a way of life to him and he will continue down that path the rest of his career! Public financing, limited election/campaign periods and strict accountability are steps here. It would be nice to think there was just one person in congress that actually represented me instead of moneyed interests.
I agree with Joseph's comments both about the war and about the other sins of the Republican party. It was the Democrats who got us into that war, without a doubt. But the Iran/Contra things was all Republican. However it certainly helped Teflon Ron get the presidency as was intended. Rumsfeld and Saddam has been mentioned but little since it doesn't aid the current agenda. And Bush I pardoning those five hasn't even been mentioned! I wonder why.
And Bill's Spirit's distrust of electronic voting machines is understandable but having worked with computers for years I've learned to trust electronic records, properly backed up, stored, and handled, far more than paper. Loose a paper record and it's just plain gone. If it's electronic you can have ten other copies if you wish, instantly. And retrieving something from electronic is much easier and faster than paper. As for as the machine he voted on, they should have offered to print out a copy for his perusal the next day or something but for one ATM to have a problem is not unusual. There were far more voting machines in constant use that day than there were ATM machines.
Any one of these subjects is worthy of an article and a thread of it's own. These are important measures and need to be discussed and debated.
Lobbyists are out of control. Yes, they provide necessary information, but it has yet to be explained to me why that information needs to be offered aboard a free private jet or while on a free vacation. Why can't it just be put into writing and emailed? Nobody is fooled. Lobbyists buy votes from dishonest congressmen and officials. Sometimes they are even permitted to write the actual legislation so it is crafted exactly right to benefit their employers, such as the so-called energy bill. That's wrong no matter how you look at it.
The same holds true of campaign contributions. If a legislator accepts a contribution from a special interest group or favors from a special interest lobbyist (aside from factual information) he/she should be barred from voting on any bill benefiting that organization.
Our two major political parties are not tied to a single ideology. They both are associations of a variety of groups that have decided to live under the same roof for expediency. That is, the expediency of winning elections! For instance the Democratic Party might be described as a confederation of liberals, trade unions, and minorities while the Republican party could be similarly described as made up of social conservatives, business people, and libertarians. (I probably forgot lots of "important" constituents of both, but I'm just trying to illustrate the point.)
John, I find it difficult to pin down your gripe with the Republicans other than that as a group they aren't exactly like you. But I think that they can't be, because they are made up of several diverse groups. If we had a multi-party system, you could probably find a party that reflected your own thinking much more closely. But we seem to be stuck with just two. And why is that?
I also find it interesting that the electoral college keeps coming up. I have read opinion pieces attesting that the electoral college is one of the most important forces that keep us locked into a two-party system. In the first couple of elections after the constitution was ratified, there were no parties and everything worked out fine. (If you call the messes of 1796 and 1800 fine, but they tweaked it after that and made it perfect. If you call it perfect when 7% of the time the loser of the popular vote becomes president anyway.) But once someone forms a national party, they will always dominate and the only way to challenge will be to form an opposing party. Once you have two, they work to keep their duopoly. I think history has shown that this thesis could be correct. Once a party dies, it always seems to get killed off by the emergence of a new national party that displaces it.
Also, I agree that it is time to get rid of the electoral college. If it were such a great idea, we would have suggested one for the Iraqis to put in their constitution. I don't think we have ever suggested to anyone that they use that system. If we did, they would think us insane. So why do we keep it ourselves?
As it regards term liimits, I belive that we have benefited from the PResidential term limits. My view is that after 5 years a person in any job has just about seen it all and are no making decisions based on past practice rather then truly do the homework necessary to change better thiings. Simlarly, after 5 years people get comfortable with a perosn and in ploitics they get in the habit of voting for the candidate rather then being skeptical and looking a little deeper.
If there truly is a for a COngressional collective memory then the politicans should be elected for life and forget abuot change and accuntablility.
Many times people mix an annual balanced budget with lowering the national debt. Neither is that bad and if managed properly it benefits the country. The national debt is like anyone or any business debt can be an effective way to manage money and wht it can do for you. As long as the net worth of America is positive by a big margin (which it is) then debt isn't bad. As for the balanced budget, I see that in two part the first is the investmetn in infastructure ans the second in the daily consumables. The investment in infastructure is important and should be continuous and a minimum portion of the budget. Because when the infastructre deteriorates the economy is close behind, so I would expect that part to be out of balance more times than not as it is always building for the future. The Consumption part is where we need more control, and that is best done by ahving public measures of the value we are getting for the money spent and then the public can decide if we are getting suffienct value or if it should be reined in.
That leads to the lin item veto. First I believe it should be restricted to money spending and would even be willing to narrow it to one time capital expenditure, the proverbial pork projects. The long members stay in Congress the more effective they get in burying the pork and if we aren;t going to limiit the terms in Congress then we should give some leveling power to the President. I do recongize that the line item veto would tend to shift the balance of power, but the president already has veto power and the Congress has the mechanism to over ride it (both are proven to work).
I agree with you about the lobbyists using their jets, etc. I think that all lobbying should be restricted to the congressman's office and during normal working hours. The lobbyists don't need to supervise the legislation all the way through the process.
Your idea of prohibiting a congressman from voting on any legislation, the passage of which could affect a campaign donor. In fact, if the people were to put together an ethics bill it would be a lot more comprehensive than anything congress has done!
This signifies an enlightenment, of a sort.
I don't hold party affiliation myself, I register Independent.
I vote across party lines, for the candidate whom I feel
best represents the ideals I am looking for.
I think of myself as a fiscal Conservative, but a Social Progressive.
I suppose that makes me a Moderate.
Some people might be extreme left-wing or right-wing,
I don't feel anyone has to be extreme anything.
I think I accurately represent the Status Quo of people
who want change in this country, but are disappointed
in politicians who have failed to make the necessary
changes.
The idea of a Democracy is one where each person
is represented, where each person has a voice,
a vote, that matters.
I used to believe that the United States was
a Democracy, but I don't believe that anymore.
What is has become instead is a sort of Plutocracy,
where the wealthy elite can buy power and votes,
and where the less fortunate have less power,
since they don't have the money to buy power
and influence.
I think the time is right for a candidate who
will restore power back to the people.
I believe that government should work
for the betterment of the people,
not the other way around.
You said: "John, I find it difficult to pin down your gripe with the Republicans other than that as a group they aren't exactly like you."
Read up on the Republican core values, and in fact, it's right on. The problem I have is supporting an ineffective leadership team which says one thing and does another.
If you read through my article - and I assume you did - what my GRIPE is, is that we've got the inmates running the asylum. We've got CRIMINALS and unethical leaders who put the PARTY'S interests first, and that of BEATING the ENEMY PARTY over representing the People.
I believe if NEW CONSERVATIVE LEADERSHIP were to step forward, given the sad state of the Republican Party, this new leadership could start a new conservative party, and attract the best and brightest AUTHENTIC leaders from the Republican Party away, essentially leaving this corrupt party to wither away.
Does that clarify my gripe? I agree with Republican's mission, vision, principles, ethical statement, core values and priorities; I am simply convinced that the corporate culture of this party is such that those PRIORITIES have not been achieved, and in fact, the party has not only allowed criminal and corrupt activity to seep in, but overtake the VERY LEADERSHIP, at the HIGHEST LEVELS.
I am humiliated by the total lack of a spine by Republican leadership by their continuing SUPPORT of an INEPT Executive branch that has TAKEN AWAY the rights of our citizens. Perhaps it's the libertarian in me, but it's also NOT in keeping with their core values - not in the least.
Institutional memory is maintained in the senate by the staggered terms of senators. In the house there is no effort to maintain institutional memory. It's the house which is to really reflect the current will of the people. We already do vote for the senators and representatives who write our laws. No change is needed there.
You really don't think you're smart enough to vote for the president and want someone else to do it for you? I don't feel that way at all. When our nation was young the average person really had no way to know anything about those who ran for president. The electors, members of the electoral college, were much more numerous and were people who were known and trusted by the citizens.
There is no need for that today as every candidate gets TV exposure and lots of other media. People can know and choose their candidate on their own. This has nothing to do with the makeup of the House and Senate which I would strongly object to changing.
I believe that the president needs to have his power trimmed, not enhanced by a line item veto. Every president that ever was wanted this power but our founding fathers wisely prohibited such.
The national debt and the value of America are two entirely different things and have no real relationship as no one is going to "sell" America. The problem with the national debt is that the interest alone takes up a major portion of the government's income. If your own personal debt was such that half of your income was going just to pay the interest on it, wouldn't that be cause for concern to you? I'm not saying that there should be no debt as long as it is reasonable and leaves room in the budget for other needed services.
Our national income, just like your own, needs to cover all current expenses plus some for paying off the debt. That is not were we are and some people are wanting tax cuts. That would be irresponsible management and really amount to pandering to some special interest.
You'll find if you look that we are indeed a representative democracy and a representative republic. They are one and the same.
On term limits everyone has an opinion and each is as worth as another. I oppose term limits but look at Idaho. Twice the people put through initiatives to force term limits on public officials. Finally, before it went into effect, the legislature, as is their prerogative, passed legislation negating what the people had twice approved.
Now you might think that a lot of incumbents would have found they'd cooked their goose with that move. However, when the incumbents came up for reelection, they had a big R by their name and the opposition had a D. So much for term limits in Idaho, the incumbents were reelected!
For starters, Lose the electoral college and verify and test voting machines. We don't need our vote privatized. James C. makes a very cogent case for the other proposed changes vis a vis issues that were covered here.
As good a person as the historical Jefferson was, he himself had slaves, which means that on some level, even he bought into a myth of "We the People." At the time of the 1770's, King George was acting very much like our present George, with the English Parliament struggling to enforce England's own difficulties of a constitutional breach of executive powers (King George) in the name of national security. Such abuses were part of what Jefferson and others meant, when they created very clear separations of power among the three branches, with checks and balances to enforce accountability. We're living right now with another King George, but where are the Jefferson's and Franklin's in this present mess?
My take is that the Republican Party is trying to become more insightful, and this is in spite of the ravings of the likes of Rush Limbaugh, whom I find to be a good provider of comic relief and perspective of madness. He states what mad kings don't quite dare to state.
So hopefully, the Republican Party, like in the time of Lincoln, will evolve with the times.
Just a short story about this. I don't recall the details but the story goes like this. several years ago, in the 90's sometime, there was a forest fire that was raging in the north west somewhere. 5 firefighters were overcome by flames and died. When the investigation was complete this is what they found. 5 c-130 cargo planes were leased to the forest service to fight forest fires. No one knew where they were until one crashed in South America with a load of cocaine on board and a dead CIA agent at the stick. They concluded that if the forest service had, had them, those 5 fire fighters wouldn't have died. This was under RAY GUN.
The problem lies within a PARTISAN system that has ENCOURAGED people LIKE George Bush and Dick Cheney to be at their worst, instead of their best!
Yes, they made up their own minds. Yes, they are responsible. But as Americans, WE NEED TO REALIZE THIS PATTERN REPEATS until the day we LIMIT the powers of Parties, which naturally become CORRUPT.
I respect the Presidency. I think "stupid is as stupid does," and they're providing it. HOWEVER, we won't solve the problem strictly through electing new leaders. It's GOT to be POLICY-driven.
Make sense?
I still think that if we trashed the Electoral College we should get a more interresting and diverse set of political parties for us to chose among.
Moving forward, one of the best ideas I've heard thus far to ensure the balance of power is in the hands of the People, not the Parties, is to institute a RECALL ELECTION as part of our Democracy.
Too late for this President, and probably not fair to nail the next President with this process, however, I would sure like to see it implemented starting in 2012.
We Giveth; We can Taketh Away. THAT IS AMERICA.
Your post above assumes that we are still in the same mindset that this country has been in for the past 3 or 4 decades. Things have changed and are still changing. I didn't get on the internet until I was almost 40. I'm 53 now and the internet is a very important part of my life. I bank, pay bill, stay in touch with more people than ever before, and I research what ever interests me to get facts. Think of how many people were on the net just 2 or 3 election cycles ago, and how many are on now. You still need millions of dollars to run for high office. But you can now get your message out faster and cheaper, if you know how to use the internet. Yes you are partially right about the Independent candidate. There has been one as long as I can remember. There are always alot of people running for president. I think I heard in the debate last night, there are 139 people running for the democratic ticket. As far as the Bu$h / Gore debate, The dums and repugs are the ones that make the rules. They can exclude whoever they want. And when they do let them in, they call them kooks like Kucinich and Gravel so no one will take the serious. They are trying hard to keep others out, but thank God for the internet. And the truth will set you free.
I predict Fred Thompson and Michael Bloomberg will be the Unity08 candidates. Screw the Parties!
My experience with institutional or organizational memory has to do with the lessons learned that need to be shared with succeeding members of an organization. The most effective way to do that and have the best chances at the actual learning is share is by capturing and documenting the learning and the description of how it was learned. The least likely form of institutional memory is relying on people to keep and share the lesson. People few things from a personal perspective and when they share that perspective effects what is shared. Simply put, people are the right repository for memory. My test, do you think that Senators Reid and Senator Lott would transfer the same lesson. If not, then I am skeptical that the institutional memory concern is all that strong.
I don't feel that it takes any special expertise to be a successful member of Congress. If a person has average mental abilities and a willingness to work (do their home work) and are ethical (a real believe in doing good) then they can be a good Representative or Senator.
I do believe that absolute power (or some near version) does corrupt the perspective of people. The longer a person in a position of power (a Senator, a Representative, a President, a Cabinet officer, a Congressional staffer) is more likely to become preoccupied with keeping that power and forget why they came there. At least for elected officials I see a real value in term limits. Michigan has them and the bad state of affairs doesn't have to do with term limits it has to do with the economy and a desire to avoid change.
With regard to the Electoral College, I need someone to show me why it is wrong to have 2 Senators from each state (independent of population) and it is right to eliminate the Electoral College. I still feel that if everything were by population the middle part of the country would be disenfranchised. TV is so lazy and so biased toward the large east and west coast markets that I done see them helping the rest of the country.
Do say they can't sell parts of the country, Chicago has sold its toll roads and is considering selling the state lottery. If you can give me a way to measure the value we get for the money spent (so America can hold the Congress accountable) then I will accede to a balanced budget. Because then once people have a means to decide on the value they are paying for we will see a change in the government spending habits.
It seems the voters in Idaho weren't that committed. However, in Michigan the citizens voted for term limits, there are no incumbent Representative with more than 3 terms (6 years) and no State Senators with more than 2 terms (8 years) and the state government hasn't fallen apart, so personal experience hasn't show a down side to term limits. Michigan is in economic tough times, but that has more to do with a cultural unwillingness to change (the glories of the 50s, 60s, etc.).
I couldn't agree more on the institutional memory but the documenting and training you mention is not going to happen. And there is in the US Senate the makeup for institutional memory in the staggered terms so they are not elected all in one year. Representatives are and that is to insure response to the will of the people.
I agree that willingness to serve and very high ethics are principle needs for a good congressman. I would say that there is a skill to the work they do and some very intelligent people don't seem to be able to get it. So I don't fully agree that anyone with the willingness and ethics and normal intelligence will be a good congress person. I've seen persons like this on city councils I've dealt with and it isn't quite that easy. I'm sure being a US congressman is a little more complex than city council. Ability to read fast, assimilate a vast amount of information, form actions from the information and work with others in a political setting to achieve final results.
I guess I need someone to tell me what the heck having two senators has to do with the electoral college. This is apples and oranges! The electoral college has noting to do with electing senators, just the president. The senate and house have noting to do with the college. Again, I think I'm smart enough to vote for the president. No one has effectively convinced me why I want someone else to vote for me.
Right now, if 50% plus one vote in a state goes for one candidate for president the other 49% of the voters have just been disenfranchised. 100% of the electoral votes will be for that candidate and the 49% voters simply wont be represented in the final voting. That's wrong on the face of it! The need for the college is gone and it is an anachronism in our system today. Most elections the college makes no difference anyhow. Only about three times in our history has the popular vote been overridden by the college. It's time to dump it!
On term limits, it is a matter of personal conviction I reckon. I'm opposed to term limits and always have been. You want them and that's OK too. I believe that government will become more operated by bureaucrats than it is if term limits are instituted and that is partly because the loss of institutional memory and a greater reliance on the bureaucrat who understand what the congress people haven't had time to learn. It will happen. But perhaps the overall effect would be for the better. No way to know but I don't want to try it.
I don't believe you can extrapolate from a state government, the likelihood of term limits being good on the national level. There is so much more to learn and understand, dealing with everything from nuclear resources to multiple nations throughout the world. We have differing opinions here and that's what makes life interesting.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely! That is the old statement and it's probably true. You're not going to eliminate that and we need close surveillance to keep it under control. Openness in government is essential! However, all congress people have to corrupt themselves today just to get elected! We've got to come up with a way to handle campaigns and financing to take the fantastic costs out of it if we want to get congress people who represent you and I. Once they are elected, they've already sold their souls so a little more graft is not seen as anything out of the ordinary. I'm sure that there are some who are trying their best to be honest and I don't wish to impugn those persons.
I'm curious, why are they selling the state lottery? And why did they sell their toll roads? I'd think that they'd sell roads that didn't produce an income instead if they found a pigeon to buy them! Heck, maybe we can sell the state of Florida and solve all our budget problems, you think?
Thanks Duane! We don't have to agree.
What assurances do we have that Bloomberg and ol Fred [who contributed to Scooter's defense fund] will have any more regard for our rights than the current bunch?
Dobbs (hey here's another Lou : Lou Barletta).
The analogy I see in the Senate and the Electoral College is that they both allow the individual states to still have an impact even if they don't have a significant population.
In the Senate each state has 2 votes whether it is New York or North Dakota. In the Electoral College North Dakota, Iowa, and the rest of the Great Plaines have an impact on the election of a President even if their total population isn't equivalent to New York and California. Since I see these regions having different issues to address without the Electoral College the Big Cities could so dominate the Presidential election that the candidates would have no reason learn the issues of the Great Plains they would never spend any time there (the efficiency for getting votes on strictly popular vote count would drive them to visit on the largest cities).
If I could overcome this concern I would buy into the elimination of the Electoral College, and support a democratic vote for the President.
As for term limits, I am skeptical that the Congressional staff bureaucrats aren't running things now. My view is that the longer Congressmen have the same staff members the more they rely on them, and the longer a Congressman is in office the more he goes by rote. I will show my cynicism, I truly doubt that Senator Stabenow or Senator Kennedy or even Senator Reid read every piece of legislation they vote on, or that they even read the complete law they sponsor. If they don't, then I suspect they get a brief summary from staff and vote. While I expect new Senators such a Thume read much more of the legislation up for their votes because they are enthusiastic about the job (its new), and probably a bit naive that a constituent will actually asked them about it.
As far as all that there is to learn, I don't have your confidence in our Congressman. If you asked Congressman John Conyers of Detroit or Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan (third in the line of Senate power) about nuclear power, ethanol, the current French President, and so many other things, I honestly believe that you find out that you or I know more than they do.
As far as the "corrupt" of people by power, the short the time in power the less the opportunity to be corrupted. Also, the newer the candidate the more he/she has to depend on a grassroots campaign force and the harder it is to narrow who you cultivate. How much do you think election turn on name recognition, and who has the best name recognition?
They are selling the roads and trying to sell the lottery because they couldn't restrain their spending.
I find truly valuable to discuss with a person that disagrees with me, it makes me think, assess my views, and make a, hopefully, rational case for my position. Thank you for your thoughts, your patience, and your time. To me the original articles are important, but it the discussion that the authr engages in that truly makes the thread valuable.
I appreciate your patience and your thoughtful responses to my questions. Nope, we don't have to agree to learn and enjoy the dialog!
Rest assured that I would be as upset as you if they tried to change the allocation of senators. After all, I'm from a small state. And I understand your thinking in relation to the electoral college. Realistically, the populous area of the nation already control the presidential election. Have you ever heard of the nation's election hanging on which way Wyoming went? Neither have I.
The mass of people are in the states like NY and California so I'm very doubtful that eliminating the college would, in real terms, have any effect in the next 50 years. It hasn't had any in the last 80 or so, maybe longer. I'd just like to know that when I vote I was personally voting for our president. I don't see this as an advantage of disadvantage to either party. As it is 50%+ 1 vote in a populous state sends all the electors pledged to that candidate, not just 51% of the electors. Ultimately the mass of people will prevail and that is the way of a representative government.
You're thinking semi like me on the embedded bureaucracy. If congress people changed more often they would, as first time electees in office, depend heavily on the entrenched bureaucracy to help them get started. When they leave, the bureaucracy stays behind and will help the next one. In time, the bureaucracy has more real effect on legislation than anyone else. Heck, they probably already do. But if the elected person remains, he has the opportunity to broaden his own personal knowledge and may discover problems that have been existent since his predecessor.
I kind of feel it is the responsibility of the voters to learn enough about their congress people to retain the competent and kick out the incompetent. I know, this is not necessarily happening but that is where the people are not living up to their responsibility under our system.
I agree that most bills are never read by most congress people. They get synopsis from their staff. I don't care if they've been there two months or 20 years. And I think the first timers are going to be spending extra time trying just to get even, they need to learn the jargon, procedures, etc. in which the legislation is couched. And they've got to fend off the vultures (lobbyists) circling their offices to get their brainwashing, favors, etc. in to influence legislation. I do feel it is very important for the elected persons to have an innate sense of politics so they can best
understand what they might have to give up to get anything and where they can best take a stand. Compromise is essential to getting anything done.
Let me assure you, you've made a very rational case for your position. The fact that I don't agree with it all is not for your lack of acuity. We just see things different. And, I believe we're looking for the same outcomes, just see the road getting there with alternate routes.
I hope to read more of your articles in the future.
One point on the staff, a new member of Congress will have a tendancy to bring at least a few new stafffers which will contribute to a turn over in the Congressional pros. The longer term staffer will not like dealing with that constant pressure so I wouldn't be surpised if they would seek more long-term stability and move to the adminstrative part of government or seek other DC employers.
I truly wish that politics was less about money
and more about people.
That's one of those questions I avoid if I wish to receive an intelligent answer.