How reorganizing the faces in Washington won't solve our problems in government. by Larry Warrick
(libertarian)
Monday, December 28, 2009
The management bestseller from the 1960's, The Peter Principle, points out that one sign of an organization or an individual reaching their "level of incompetence" is thinking that re-organizing alone solves problems. When considering whom to waste your precious vote on this year, remember the Peter Principle. "Recycle Congress" and "vote the incumbents out" are both phrases we will be used to hearing and reading through this summer and fall. Is that the answer? What are the odds that the American people will effect fundamental redirection of their elected leaders and representatives by simply 'flipping this house'?
The answer to this forward looking question depends on your point of view. The rationale goes that replacing the incumbent politicians with new politicians will so upset the buddy system in Washington DC that the newly elected 'class of 2010' and beyond will have a great deal more respect for the wishes of the electorate and will be less likely to pass egregious legislation in the middle of the night. Talk of congressional term limits and such oversight legislation as the 'Read the Bills Act', the 'Write the Laws Act' and the 'One Subject at a Time Act' is getting more attention amongst those who take an interest in all things political.
Is this the solution to our collective woes? Regardless of political opinion (or aspirations), can we 'fix' the government by simply changing the faces of those who act within its bounds; or are we simply 'rearranging the furniture'?
Ultimately, the responsibility for errant government rests on the shoulders of those who do the electing - You and Me. That We the People have made some seriously bad choices in the past is beyond question, regardless of where you find yourself on the political spectrum. Going from person to person, the names of those mistakes will change, but the errors remain. Does it not follow that 'kicking the bums out' is only partially a solution to what has become a very complex problem?
Each election cycle, our would-be leaders and representatives pay homage to the lessons learned during the previous rounds of invasive legislation and spendthrift policy implementation. Paying off political allies and sending earmarked pork barrel projects back home is standard practice and when the time comes to fund another campaign, these beneficiaries of electoral largesse remember who their friends are. Come re-election time, our eloquent congressmen tell us they have heard our complaints, learned their lesson and won't do it again. They mirror what we've been saying all along whilst they were ignoring us and doing as they pleased. The gullible Joe and Jane on the street duly forgive their errant incumbent and send him back for another term where he can continue to ignore us for another 2, 4 or 6 years, and the cycle repeats itself.
This time there's a twist. This time there's a new voting block in town that requires the would-be elected official to talk of constitutional government, fiscal responsibility, free markets, and so on. The TEA party movement that started last spring is changing the game and the professionals are paying attention. Suddenly they hear our opposition to the bailouts and 'stimulus' bills. Now they understand that we want constitutionally limited government, not socialized medicine. Now they see that We the People don't buy into the 'climate change' hype and don't appreciate them trying to raise our taxes in response to this proven non-sequitur with 'cap and trade' legislation. That's what they're going to tell us in their refined speeches this summer and fall, and the 'sound byte' media will parrot what they're saying. Sounds like politics as usual where they tell us what we want to hear and we vote for the one who promises the most benefits. "The problem is in Washington!" I can hear them now. "Let me fix it for you and give you all these great benefits while I'm at it!"
No, the problem is not the politicians, the problem is us. We the People are both the problem and the solution. Replacing an incumbent politician with another who promises the same things and makes it sound just as sincere will not achieve the fundamental realignment necessary to return our government to its constitutionally limited role as defender of our rights and protector of our freedoms. Replacing one crooked, lying, thieving, narcissistic politician with his less experienced twin brother is not even a band-aid on the gaping wound we call our country.
"So what do you want us to do, Larry?" I thought you'd never ask.
We need to discriminate. We need to discriminate like never before. We need to root out the liars and thieves before they have a chance to abuse the power of government, helping themselves and their friends for another 2, 4 or 6 years. If a candidate tells you he wants to uphold and defend the constitution, congratulate him on his patriotism. If he says he is a fiscally responsible conservative who wants to reduce your tax burden, shake his hand. If he then tells you that he wants to continue the failed policies of policing the world and nation building, that we just need to tweak the healthcare system with tort reform, or that he wants to lead the fight against climate change, turn your back and walk away. This is a man of contradictory aspirations that cannot be realized. How can a candidate advocate for constitutionally limited government, fiscal responsibility and free market enterprise on the one hand, and then recommend government intervention as a solution to all of our ills? How can one be fiscally responsible whilst spending trillions on an aggressive foreign policy, bank bailouts and make work programs? How can one advocate free market principles and non-intervention then talk about how we need to legislate healthcare reforms and regulate the financial industry?
We as electors must be very suspicious of those who would garner our vote and our mandate. Look for contradictions in their written works, websites and during their oratories. Question their contradictions. Consider who is financing their campaign; will he owe the corporate interests in the military-industrial complex, the labor unions, the 'business as usual' crowd, or are his donors small business types and supporters off the street? We the People have been lax in our duties to our governance for way too long, we have a lot of catching up to do.
When we send our chosen representatives to Washington, we need to watch them like hawks protecting our young. Every single misstep needs to bring a cacophony of protests and disapproval down around their ears. Each and every newly-elected official needs to know that we are watching and we vote. We need to teach this to our children and grand children. Our government needs to know that we are watching and we won't be fooled again.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 5
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Larry Warrick only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Larry Warrick is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Ross Williams
Date: 2009-12-29 06:36:18
In general a good column, but you fall into the same faux-libertarian nihilism that so many do:
How can one be fiscally responsible whilst spending trillions on an aggressive foreign policy, ...
Libertarianism only requires that whatever Constitutional framework a nation is governed by be rigidly followed; our framework defines foreign policy to be the purview of the government and if We The People choose a government that chooses an aggressive foreign policy that costs trillions, then We The People are on the hook for it.
Our framework does NOT, on the other hand, create a government with a legitimate claim to many of the other things you rail against.
The point is that you can't have both. You want war, vote for it. You want fiscal responsibility, same response. You want government on the cheap and empire by the boatload - whistle for it because the guy who says he can deliver is blowing smoke in your nether regions and if you fall for it, it's your vote that's wasted.
If we don't change the deck chairs, we have one of the prerequisites of dictatorship. Why else have so many strong men in Africa, Latin America etc. sought to scuttle, and in many cases succeeded in scuttling, presidential term limits? An argument against term limits is an argument against democracy. When the "deck chairs" don't change, we don't have electoral competition to speak of, not on district levels. We do have undislodgable power mongers running legislatures for decades on end.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
