 |
| *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?
