The Trouble With Politics

The trouble with politics is that it’s full of politicians.

You see, the official job description of a member of the United States Congress is to represent the voters of their district. In a perfect world, every person in the country would be able to vote for all the things that come before Congress, and Congress would be unnecessary. This is, however, unfortunately not a perfect world. So instead, we elect representatives to go represent us and do our voting for us in Washington.

And yet they don’t represent us. Partisan politics has become so rigid and severe, and politicians have grown such a sense of entitlement that the opinions of their constituents really only matter to the extent that they desire to be re-elected. If a U.S. Representative believes that we need to stay in Iraq, by God, it doesn’t matter if every person in his district disagrees. He has to stick to his beliefs, man!

Bullshit. No matter how dead set against something any representative personally is, in all honesty it shouldn’t matter. If you are an elected representative of the people, your job is to vote the way the people would if they were present. Thomas Paine said so in Common Sense, which was the single most important rallying point in the events leading to the Revolution. That’s what the people wanted. That’s what the founding fathers wanted. That’s what this country is. It’s a representational democracy, and the job of those representatives is to represent their constituents.

Not only do our representatives fail to represent us, but partisan politics has hijacked the system to the extent that getting any real change done is next to impossible. How is it, pray tell, that partisan ‘whips,’ whose job is to make sure their colleagues vote along party lines, are an official United States federal government office? If that doesn’t convince you that the system is fundamentally flawed, I don’t know what would. George Washington, in his farewell address, warned the fledgling nation not to slip any farther into the bog of partisan politics that was already taking hold. The party system is silly, especially when it’s entirely dominated by just two parties. Washington knew that; he saw what was happening, and he warned against it. Did we listen? Obviously not.

If we want to come closer to the dream that is America, the dream set forth in the Constitution, one of the most important steps we can take is to put Congress in line. Reform the party system, either by abolishing political parties or by splitting the two dominant parties into several smaller ones. This way, ideas from all across the spectrum will be fully entertained, and maybe some change can occur. Also, the people need to start demanding that their representatives take the opinions of their constituents much deeper into consideration.

It’s supposed to be a government by the people, of the people, for the people, after all.

D Is for Disappointment

There was a time when I thought that a Democratic majority in Congress meant that real change was coming our way. During the election cycle, Democrats promised change in several areas, should they be elected. Social Security would be reformed; healthcare would be reformed; the Iraq war would be openly and seriously discussed and re-evaluated. The American people wanted this change, so when Election Day came, they voted Democrats into the majority seat in the Legislature for the first time in twelve years. America held its breath for the last two months that it would have to endure the Republican majority. And then, on January 4, 2007, Democrats took the reigns.

And then...nothing. Well, not nothing, but certainly not much. Some excitement over the first female Speaker of the House, a little campaign finance reform, and a bit of discussion involving the areas in which Democrats promised change. This discussion, though, has been rather disgraceful and disappointing. The Democratic majority has not pushed as strongly as they should for the things that got them elected.

Consider the Iraq debate. For the first few months of their newfound power, all the Democrats did was push for non-binding resolutions denouncing the war. These resolutions didn't really mean anything, and even if they did they were weakly worded. Overall, fewer words were used in these resolutions to denounce the war than to pledge support for the troops - a cause that, as I spoke of in an earlier blog, would best be served by bringing them home. Democrats allowed themselves to be pushed around, adding pointless sections to pointless resolutions, fearing that if their Iraq war denunciation did not include "but we support the troops," the American people would turn on them.

Even as they have attempted to take the debate more seriously, they've allowed themselves to be pushed around. Their new Iraq war budget plan includes timetables for American withdrawal - an excellent step in the right direction. But they've allowed the president and his Republican cronies to hold the moral high ground: Bush has promised to veto the bill, and every day he denounces Congress for not passing an acceptable budget. Congressional Democrats don't realize that if they shot back, saying that Bush was the one refusing to pass an acceptable budget, the American people would agree with them. So they just take the tongue lashing, and continue to push for a bill that promises an automatic veto, without applying pressure on Bush to support it.

Change in other areas has been even slower in coming. The disgrace of an Iraq war debate has occupied most of the Democrats' attention, so the other things they promised simply aren't on the docket. Where's the Social Security or healthcare reform? Where's the revocation of Bush's ignorant 2001 and 2003 tax cuts? Where are the Democrats we were promised?

It would appear that Congressional Democrats grew so used to their minority role from 1994 to 2006 that they don't realize just how powerful they can be. A stronger group of lawmakers in place of the disorderly mob we see today could really fulfill Democratic promises to the people. A stronger group of lawmakers could stand up to the president and his followers.

Congress, not the president, was set forth in the Constitution as the most powerful branch of the American government. But in recent decades, and especially with the Bush administration, presidential power has become paramount in Washington. If Democrats turned their attention to the Constitution, they could easily find support to call for a reversal of this trend. At the same time, Congressional power would be expanded. America would stop sliding farther and farther into becoming a dictatorship, and move instead closer to true Democracy. Congressional Democrats could lead this fight against expanding presidential power, and in doing so would probably gain even more support from the people.

But I no longer have very high hopes for the weaklings who hold this responsibility, as well as the other pressing demands of Congress. I am overall quite disappointed in them. The position they're in is perfect for pulling America in the right direction, but they simply don't seem capable of this.

My last hope for them lies in the attorney scandal. If they can stand up to the challenges of the Congressional vs. Presidential power struggle that this has caused and will continue to fuel, then perhaps they're not doomed. And perhaps, after all, their legacy will not be one of disappointment.

Support the Troops by Bringing Them Home

Earlier today, while visiting a military base, President Bush said of the War on Terror, "We've lost some fantastic young men and women. And we honor their service and their sacrifice by completing the mission, by helping a generation of Americans grow up in a peaceful world." This echoes the same message war supporters shout at anyone who believes we should withdraw our soldiers from Iraq. Supposedly, the highest honor we can give a soldier who has died in Iraq is to get the job done; and any talk of pulling American soldiers out of Iraq shows a lack of support for those soldiers. Democrats, nervous as they have been with their newfound power in Congress during the first few months of this year, blindly accepted this mantra. Every piece of legislation Democrats have proposed that sends a message of being against the surge in Iraq has spent more time making sure to note support of the troops than to denounce the war.

But just imagine, for a moment, that you were a soldier in Iraq. You've seen more death in the last month than most people see in a lifetime. Every day, you go about your duties, without any guarantee that you'll survive the day. You might have sub-par body armor and weapons, and the vehicles you ride in are easily turned into scrap metal by IEDs. This might be the sort of life you're willing to lead, if you're fighting for a good cause, but in Iraq what noble intentions may exist are weak, at best. Now ask yourself: Would you rather people show their support by keeping you in this impossible and pointless demonstration of American folly, or by realizing that's all it is and bringing you home to your loved ones?

Oh, but we're fighting for a good cause! We've brought the fight to them so we don't have to fight them here! We're making the world a safer place! We're fighting terrorism, you un-American swine!

A good cause? Are you kidding me? Since when is invading a sovereign nation under false pretenses of a connection to a terrorist attack, killing tens of thousands of civilians, creating a political vacuum in the middle of a volatile region, and throwing the whole place into a state of chaos a good cause? World War II? Good cause. Afghanistan? Good cause. Iraq? Not so much.

But you supported the war in the beginning! You flip-flopper!

Based upon the information the American people were fed by the Bush Administration early on, yes, I thought it was a noble cause. Four years of watching the death toll rise, and the Arab world stumble toward complete chaos, and, most importantly, learning that we were deceived as to the original intent of the war have taught me otherwise. I cannot support a war that was initiated under false pretenses, and only later was tied to the advancement of freedom and democracy around the world.

Well, what about the soldiers who have died? We must honor their sacrifice by finishing what they started!

There was no reason to put them in a position to die in the first place. Attempting to finish an unfinishable job in no way honors their deaths. Honor their deaths by making sure no more of their brothers have do die for the lost cause they died for.

Come to your senses, people! Calling for a troop withdrawal is in no way contrary to supporting the soldiers. We're not talking about a mad scramble out of the country, allowing the insurgents to fire at our soldiers' backs. We're talking about a steady decrease in troop levels until all of our soldiers are out of that ridiculous hell hole and back home where they belong. Support our soldiers. Bring them home.