Pages

Monday, December 31, 2012

Breaking Down the Political Equation


*may not be mathematically accurate

The US political equation, like any other equation, has two sides. When things are not going well in the country, one or both sides of the political equation are out of whack. On one side, the citizens can become uninformed and/or apathetic and vote for incompetent politicians. On the other side, an incompetent government, elected by uninformed/apathetic citizens, will likely become corrupt and do things that harm the country.

I believe that every American would agree that both sides of the equation are out of whack. But which side of the equation are we spending most our effort trying to fix? From my perspective, we spend nearly 100% of our time trying to convince the citizens on the opposite side of the political spectrum to change their minds and vote for the greedy, corrupt and inept politicians that we prefer when compared to the other greedy, corrupt and inept politicians running. Meanwhile, on the opposite side of the equation, government has become so corrupt and dysfunctional that our country has been made a mess. Politicians insulate themselves from losing elections by taking money from special interests and by gerrymandering districts. They line their pockets by taking bribes and kickbacks and by taking advantage of their positions to do things that would land your or me in prison. Shouldn't we spend some effort attempting to fix the way government works? After all, how can you be upset with another citizen for voting for an awful politician who then passed a bad bill when they are almost all awful politicians and they are almost all bad bills?

Even a good bill that has the potential to become a beneficial law can be loaded with earmarks that rob taxpayers to fund politicians' pet projects. A politician that votes against the bill can be blamed for its failure to pass in the next campaign. Or, if they vote for it, they will be blamed for helping to pass a bill with wasteful earmarks. It is a no-win scenario for them and for us.

In 2010, TEA Party Republicans introduced a bill that would ban earmarks. Failing to get adequate support from Democrats or fellow Republicans, the bill failed. But what if we citizens demanded that a ban on earmarks be passed? That any politician that voted against the ban would be voted out of office in the next election? We could get this critical change made. And with a ban on earmarks, every politician could better be evaluated by their voting record without opposition to (or support of) earmarks to confuse the intention of their vote. It would make it much easier for voters to understand what policies their representatives honestly support and which they oppose.

How would you reform government?
There are other Congressional rules that need to be addressed to get government to function properly: reforming the filibuster, strengthening the rules regarding gifts from lobbyists and closing the revolving door between Congress and lobbying firms. Those few changes would have an incredible impact on improving the government.

If thinking of politics as a two-sided equation doesn't really cement things in for you--that our fight is with government and not with each other--then consider this: as an American, I would lay down my life to protect your right to worship and to express your faith--or any other expression--in every way that the First Amendment protects, or to protect your right to vote. I would lay down my life to protect your right to bear arms or to have access to a fair judicial system, should it be required. I would lay down my life to protect your right to have your tax dollars fairly collected, wisely spent and well-accounted for. Shouldn't that be more important than whether we see exactly eye-to-eye on matters of abortion or gun rights or what tax rates should be? I would hope that every American has the same devotion because, if we do, that should bond us like brothers and sisters. Then we can together look at the things that are wrong with the government and correct them. When thinking of those rights that we most cherish, who is the greater risk to them, your neighbor or the government?

If reforming the government sounds too daunting, imagine this: we force all of the money (or at least the dirty money) out of elections. That eliminates most of the corruption. Then, we re-draft the ethics rules of Congress. That eliminates the rest of corruption and eliminates the gridlock, horrible bills, wasteful spending and poor judgment. We get it done with oversight and accountability. I know that it isn't going to be just that easy. It is going to be a lot of work. And it means we all work together to watch what government is doing and keep it in line. But because the work is going to be hard, does it mean that we shouldn't be doing it? Is there one person anywhere who would argue that our efforts are better spent fighting about issues we will never resolve rather than addressing issues we can actually fix?

Click here to read my idea for how we begin to take on such an endeavor. There may be many ways of getting it accomplished. We just need to find the best solution and see it though. I refuse to believe that the status quo is the best we can do. That we can only play the politicians' game. A game that only serves to keep them in power and subjugate citizens to their will. A game that denies us our birthright: a country of our own.

I promise afterward that everyone can go back to fighting like the Hatfields & the McCoys. At least the government wont' be robbing you, molesting you and poisoning you all at the same time. We look at the Middle East and express disbelief at the unresolved conflicts there. But they have real issues over there! Our problems are so minor. We have just need to redirect our efforts.

This message may never get through to the hyper-partisans. Like telling a Bears fan that the Giants are the greatest team ever. But this will make sense to a lot of Americans who, I believe, will soon be the new voting majority.

This is where the Republicans have really failed in the 2012 election. They could have nominated Ron Paul for President. Ron Paul had a chance to beat Obama but even if he lost the election, I think this message of unity and government reform would really carry with Ron Paul supporters. I think it would appeal to large factions of the Tea Party and the Occupy movement as well. And any other pragmatic activists that don't care to classify themselves as any of the above. And, I suspect, a lot of dis-affected Republicans and a lot of fed-up Democrats. All over the country, that's a lot of people and the Republican Party could have positioned itself to be the standard bearer for that group. But it's not too late for them. It may not be too late for the Democrats either. Whichever party embraces the concept of direct democratic action to reform government, and is most cooperative in helping We the People achieve that new directive, will emerge as the stronger party. Realistically, I don't see either party giving up control so that their game can be better scrutinized and refereed. But aren't they supposed to be serving us, rather than the other way around? They have flipped the game and we still haven't caught on.

If you can't see that the government side of the equation is more seriously askew than our side, and more easily-correctable, then I suggest you reexamine your math, science, history, perceptive attributes, sense of reality, etc. The student that wants access to safe, available abortions isn't selling out your future for campaign cash. The NRA supporter that wants to own an arsenal of guns isn't bargaining with corporations and industry to poison our air and water and to protect their own wealth. Politicians are doing these things. When will we stop marching to the voting booth to defend them from other politicians involved in the same schemes? When will we find the courage and conviction to take them on? Can we get control of government any other way?

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017

http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

3 comments:

  1. from LDM:

    love the graphic. earmarks are not necessarily bad - not all are equal. wouldn't want to get rid of them altogether. I would never support a ban of all earmarks but some tweaking of the rules would be in order. You make many assumptions about what the average joe understands. a voter in a particular district may well have no problem with his/her rep getting the pork - that pork may be said voter's job. Sure, there are the egregious, over the top earmarks - bridge to nowhere - Murtha's airport - - but not all are that outrageous. It's generally only wasteful pork (earmark) when it's in another one's district or state. Here's a better idea:
    https://movetoamend.org/

    WTF!! Ron Paul had a chance to beat Obama?!? No way! Not in a million years! O would have beat him by an even larger margin. If you think the ladies did not care for Mittens and Paul Ryan's all up in our lady parts, the dislike of Ron Paul in that regard would have been ten fold. Oh, and once the white extremist newsletters from Ron Paul's past hit the press, he'd be toast. Paul was in tight with the white extremists some years ago; that was his "base." Just because his kinda crazy has gone mainstream of sorts due to the GOP going off the right cliff, does make Ron Paul's ideology or record any more palatable to vast majority of Americas. Paul was right only about one thing - the Iraq war and for the wrong reasons. The guy is "not all there." Ron Paul and Paul Ryan have lots in common - total Ayn rand "makers vs. taker" crazy stuff. Rand, his son, is a nut as well but way less intelligent than his father - he's scary stupid. We gotta get Rand out of the Senate - that's doable. Both Ron and Rand Paul tout the BS "states rights" argument, and almost everything should be run by the states; with a weak federal gov't. Well, if they had any brains they'd understand we tried that weak central gov't structure under the Articles of Confederation and it did not work out very well. When they convened the Constitutional Convention, the idea was to re-write the Articles of Confederation. In the end, they threw the Articles out and drafted the Constitution.

    Not sure how we rewrite rules of Congress and such. Congress writes the rules; we have to vote for people who want to change the rules. the constituents don't write the rules. Get rid of Citizens United; and vote the bad reps out. There's no need to reinvent the wheel. The Constitution is pretty darn close to perfect an "organic" document as Lincoln said. I think Move to Amend is the way to go. You should read the "Federalist Papers."

    Please email to my gmail and not to my work addy. thanks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. my reply to LDM:

      Thanks for your reply, LDM. And thanks as always for reading. You are always my most formidable challenger. :) [I'm going to post your comments (anonymously) and my response on my blog page. I hope you don't mind.]

      We can agree to disagree on earmarks and I can certainly live in a world with earmarks but although not all earmarks are bad, they do cause a lot of confusion about the intention of our representatives. Why can't each earmark be voted upon as a separate matter, based its merit? Currently they are used to trade for votes that would otherwise not be cast for legislation that perhaps should not be passed. It's definitely not the country's most pressing issue but it strikes me as a way to clear the water, so to speak, and put more power in the hands of voters at a time when power and influence is flowing in the opposite direction. To be honest, I would prefer not to have to read dozens of articles trying to decipher why a politician voted the way they did and what the implications of that vote are. Maybe we can put all earmarks into an omnibus pork bill and let the constituents evaluate their representatives based on their horse trading abilities and how they can garner federal tax dollars for local pork projects. That would at least be a more transparent system. Aside from earmarks often being a boon to politicians and their cronies, politicians well understand that the debates over earmarks in a bill can serve their political interests or be used against their opponents. This all leaves the voters to figure out who screwed them and how to vote in response.

      I definitely support the Move to Amend project. But it is only focusing on one problem among the myriad. Perhaps I should have focused more on the dirty money issue in my "closing argument" since there would certainly be more consensus among citizens. But I'm actually kind of glad that I the earmark issue at least spawned some lively debate.

      Delete
    2. my reply to LDM (continued):

      Regarding Ron Paul, he very consistently polled higher than any other Republican candidate in national polls when put head-to-head with Obama, coming within a point of Obama at times. If he had been treated fairly by his party and by the news media, he would likely have done much better.

      As a Libertarian, Ron Paul is--by definition--among the most ideological people on the planet but I think that a lot of voters also feel that he is probably the least tyrannical politicians in Washington. I think some of his policies are monumentally bad ideas (like ending the EPA and FAA) but I also think that if the citizens push back against his ideas that he would actually listen to them. That he would adhere to the concept of representative government rather than cling to and push ideological principles. I also think that people's rejection of Romney/Ryan had a lot to do with distrust in the duo. Ron Paul has always been straight-forward and unwavering. And he would have proposed a more realistic budget.

      I could write pages about Ron Paul: the person vs. his policies vs. his potential presidency, and I am sure you could as well. But if I could make one salient point in defense of Ron Paul and his supporters, it would be that he would examine the practices of such institutions as the IMF and World Bank. Although they don't affect the daily lives of you or me very much, there are a lot of credible criticisms of these institutions, stemming from many countries who suffer from their policies. I would sleep better at night knowing that an American president, concerned with human rights (or at least dedicated to making America better and more well-respected), might re-examine how the US conducts all of its foreign policies. President Obama has been tragically status quo in this regard (as every other president has been and any other presidential contender in the field would be).

      Perhaps just taking the money out of politics would be enough of a change to allow politicians on their own to make the other changes in government that are needed. But are any of them talking about cleaning up elections? Or reigning in lobbyists? Or strengthening ethics rules? They're not going to do it until they're forced to and the country doesn't really move forward until it is done.

      I admit that I haven't read the Federalist Papers. I feel intimidated because I know I probably won't understand much of it without attending a class or discussion group. But I will try to tackle it soon and let you know if my opinions change as a result.

      I'll remove your work address from the list. I believe your gmail address is already in there.

      Delete