(no subject)
Sep. 13th, 2009 01:02 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
somedaybitch simply using this article as a handy example, in that i'm not commenting on the issues in the article, but rather the actions of the politicians in general.
to wit: the first paragraph discusses Collins' breaking with the Republican Party when she supported the stimulus bill.
the problem with that statement - and with politics - is that Collins does NOT represent the Republican Party...nor does any elected official represent the Party with which that official is elected. that, folks, is not representative democracy; see Communism, Socialism, Fascism, et al.
Collins represents the people who elected her, and if the majority of her constituents wanted the stimulus bill to pass, then that is precisely how Collins should have voted because that's what she was bloody well hired to do. likewise, if the majority of her constituents are telling her, either one way OR the other, the way they feel about the health care bill, then she'd damn well better vote that way. and just to be thorough and avoid any "but what about?!!!!" diversions...that goes for elected Democrats, Independents and whatever other sundry small parties get folk elected to office. if the majority of their constituents in a given state are opposed to HR 3200 - for example, but any legislation will do - then it is that elected official's Constitutionally-bound duty to vote accordingly. it's not about the Speaker's agenda; it's about the public's agenda. and by "public", i do not mean the mainstream press or the blogosphere heavy weights...i mean the actual people, as in, we, the the people.
and again, i use Collins - and the topics in the article - here simply because the article was handy.
the oath that every elected official swears - which is the same oath sworn by the military and law enforcement - reads thus:
but that's not what happens when Bob, Todd, Mike and Sally Go To Washington. they get there and very soon all they care about is their own careers. there should not, ever, in any way, be career elected officials.
you want a career in politics? great. don't do it on my dime.
go be a lobbyist or a bureaucrat or whateverthefuck, because the second you start worrying about your career in Washington before the needs and wishes of your constituents, you fail at representative democracy. see shit like this.
in the late 1600's, Parliament and the British Monarchy began ignoring the wishes and needs of its loyal colonists in America. we all know how that turned out.
eta:
while i think this article is missing the IMMENSE AND OBVIOUS point that the tea party movement is NOT solely the realm of "conservatives" - while the Left would certainly like that to be the case, it would be an immense mistake to assume that to be true, and an even more immense mistake for the Right to believe it's all about them - i agree with its substance and applaud its thorough documentation. and i underscore my comment outside the cut tag. this is precisely how It All Started The First Time. the public was tired of being ignored by the elitist politicians on high.
we are not subjects of The Government. they are employees of Us.
to wit: the first paragraph discusses Collins' breaking with the Republican Party when she supported the stimulus bill.
the problem with that statement - and with politics - is that Collins does NOT represent the Republican Party...nor does any elected official represent the Party with which that official is elected. that, folks, is not representative democracy; see Communism, Socialism, Fascism, et al.
Collins represents the people who elected her, and if the majority of her constituents wanted the stimulus bill to pass, then that is precisely how Collins should have voted because that's what she was bloody well hired to do. likewise, if the majority of her constituents are telling her, either one way OR the other, the way they feel about the health care bill, then she'd damn well better vote that way. and just to be thorough and avoid any "but what about?!!!!" diversions...that goes for elected Democrats, Independents and whatever other sundry small parties get folk elected to office. if the majority of their constituents in a given state are opposed to HR 3200 - for example, but any legislation will do - then it is that elected official's Constitutionally-bound duty to vote accordingly. it's not about the Speaker's agenda; it's about the public's agenda. and by "public", i do not mean the mainstream press or the blogosphere heavy weights...i mean the actual people, as in, we, the the people.
and again, i use Collins - and the topics in the article - here simply because the article was handy.
the oath that every elected official swears - which is the same oath sworn by the military and law enforcement - reads thus:
I...do solemnly swear...that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
but that's not what happens when Bob, Todd, Mike and Sally Go To Washington. they get there and very soon all they care about is their own careers. there should not, ever, in any way, be career elected officials.
you want a career in politics? great. don't do it on my dime.
go be a lobbyist or a bureaucrat or whateverthefuck, because the second you start worrying about your career in Washington before the needs and wishes of your constituents, you fail at representative democracy. see shit like this.
in the late 1600's, Parliament and the British Monarchy began ignoring the wishes and needs of its loyal colonists in America. we all know how that turned out.
eta:
while i think this article is missing the IMMENSE AND OBVIOUS point that the tea party movement is NOT solely the realm of "conservatives" - while the Left would certainly like that to be the case, it would be an immense mistake to assume that to be true, and an even more immense mistake for the Right to believe it's all about them - i agree with its substance and applaud its thorough documentation. and i underscore my comment outside the cut tag. this is precisely how It All Started The First Time. the public was tired of being ignored by the elitist politicians on high.
we are not subjects of The Government. they are employees of Us.
no subject
Date: 2009-09-13 08:51 pm (UTC)I'm sick of both Democrats and Republicans battling it out for supremacy when it should be the people of their states they are responding to.
no subject
Date: 2009-09-13 09:06 pm (UTC)humans instinctively categorize, and when you're trying to find out if someone running for office believes in the things that matter to you, then that categorization becomes important.
that said, it should really stop there.
the more important reform, imho, would be term limits. two terms for positions with short serving terms, and one term for positions with longer serving terms. and then specify how much time is required to pass before a previously elected official can run for the same office again.
and ALSO specify against gaming the system, thereby preventing a member of the House running for the Senate the second the House term is up.
what will ultimately make the most difference, though - and i say this recognizing that it may never happen simply because of human nature - is people keeping in mind that NO ONE, NOT EVER, is without flaws. the microscopic scrutiny potential elected officials must endure truly ensures that those best qualified will, in all likelihood, never run. because, honestly, who would put up with that bullshit. see Palin, H. Clinton et al.
George Washington could not get elected today. nor any of the Founding Fathers. Churchill most certainly couldn't get elected today. we're a Western World obsessed with identity politics, and while i understand its origins, i mourn its impact.
no subject
Date: 2009-09-13 09:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-14 02:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-13 09:38 pm (UTC)yes. and i make this argument, and agree with your point, not because i believe that elected folk - or people who wish to be elected folk - are somehow inherently nefarious. rather, i believe it's simply human nature. the Declaration and the Constitution read in a particular way for a reason; the Framers understood the inherent flaws of people and tried to respond accordingly.