The Party's Over
Ross Perot was famous in 1992 for saying that there "wasn't a dimes worth of difference between the Republicans and Democrats." Now granted Perot was more than a little crazy, and on a personal vendetta against Bush 41, but the truth isn't any less true if uttered by a fool.
We at TPP generally advocate a conservative point of view. We find common sense to be found with conservatism far more often than with liberalism, or it's new incarnation - progressivism, which is bi-partisan in it's efforts to infect our elected representatives. Still, we keep an open forum, and look at the pros and cons of as many views as possible before we suggest policy. It was during a wide ranging discussion over the weekend, that Perot's quote came to mind.
It was pointed out by one of my staunchly Democrat friends, that for all of the posturing, Perot was right. When I tried to make the opposing argument, I was hit with a barrage of examples from my friend as evidence to support his claim.
Let's see - Bush 43 and John McCain were leading the charge for "immigration reform." Now Obama is. It is that way because the contributors to the Republicans want to keep their cheap labor, and the contributors to the Democrats want to expand their constituency. It benefits both sides.
The "Bush Tax Cut" battle, where Boehner got a 2 year extension that did nothing to assure the business community that plans strategies 5 years out - so employment numbers would not improve. Since no jobs were going to be created unemployment was extended again. The death tax is back, and already Obama is reneging on the 2 year agreement. Both sides get to claim victory.
The Tea Party flagship issue of $100 billion in cuts to the 2011 non-budget, which was whittled down to $65 billion, and then $38 billion in smoke and mirrors, which in reality is a spending increase of $3.3 billion. While we give the new Tea Party affiliated members who stood their ground and voted "no" their props (65 as I recall), more than enough Republicans went along with the farce to allow business as usual.
To my friend's credit, he also listed Obama's backtracks on open government, 2 wars becoming 3, and the fact that under Bush we needed to take off our shoes at the airport, under Obama we get to be groped. The point was made that the Republicans and the Democrats are all part of an exclusive club, they come up with the rules, and all of the posturing is just for the TVs. He suggested that I quit my belly-aching and join the club.
Now comes the "symbolic" vote against raising the federal debt limit. With a wink and a nod, the Republicans, and a fair amount of Democrats voted against raising it, in order to push for more imaginary cuts or other imaginary concessions. Then raising the debt will pass with flying colors. You may not have heard it here first, but I'm making sure that I say it plainly. The debt ceiling is going up, and we're not getting anything for it.
Every administration and every Congress, promises to be better than the last crooked bunch of thieves, and very seldom does it happen. There is one cookie jar and all hands, Democrat and Republican are grabbing out of it. Nothing gets fixed because the career politicians like things just the way they are. We share responsibility in this for returning them to office time after time. That must change. If 2012 really is an indicator, it has started to change. The citizens have established a beach head in DC that must be built on.
I'm not willing to quit my belly-aching or joining the club. My support in the voting booth for the GOP over the Democrats has been based on my rose-colored view that in general, the Republicans will be stealing less from me than the Democrats. That assumption has been challenged and crushed.
The country is in the mess that it is in now because the Democrats and the Republicans have been complicit in creating and promoting that mess. The business of the country is no longer tended to by private citizens elected to represent the interests of their constituency.
We have created a ruling class that holds office for life in a manner worthy of the monarchy. The business of the people is sidelined. Career politicians curry favor with moneyed interests so that they can keep their cushy offices and lifestyle. And we pay for it. And now our children and grandchildren will be paying for it - except they will be paying with the yuan rather than the dollar.
Corruption and greed have replaced the one essential element thought necessary by all of the Founders - virtue. To quote James Madison:
Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks-no form of government can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea, if there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men. So that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them.
Madison spoke to the virtue of the elected representatives, and to the virtue of those who sent them. A lack of virtue in DC reflects badly on us who have cast our votes for these corrupt and greedy representatives. Those who are there, are there because we sent them. Virtue is defined as doing what is right, regardless of personal cost, because it is right. That doesn't happen very often in DC.
Virtue is so uncommon in DC that it looks odd when it shows itself. Congressman Paul Ryan comes to mind, Senator Joe Lieberman as well. Virtue does not define a person's politics. From a political stance I disagree with Joe Lieberman on more things than I could ever agree with him on. Still, I would trust him to do what he believes is in the best interest of the people of Connecticut, and of the United States.
Virtue is not blind adherence to some talking points. Virtue is not cutting deals for the sake of a deal. Virtue requires work and understanding to determine the right course on an individual issue, in the interests of the citizenry, keeping in mind the principles that this country was founded on.
There are reference materials for determining those principles. The Declaration of Independence. The Constitution of the United States of America.The Federalist Papers. The writings of Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Hamilton, et al. There is a very complete record of what the Founders saw the final product of their work to be. Any elected member of the federal government, has an obligation to be intimately familiar with these writings, or is in dereliction of duty - which is not virtue.
Common Sense Dictates
Virtue is not absent in DC. It is just not present in sufficient numbers to do any good for the country. We see virtue in the 65 Tea party affiliated members of Congress who would not give their support to the smoke and mirrors budget deal. In full disclosure, we share their sentiment over the deal. There were Democrats who stood against it, not as a holdout for a concession that never came, but because they understood it to be a sham. Those Democrats displayed virtue as well. There is no virtue in lying to the American people, or pulling a fast one on us.
We at TPP recommit to our mission to report on issues and events, giving the light of day to proposals that we believe to be in the best interest of the country, and calling out the destructive ones. We will continue to shine a bright light on corruption, incompetence, and the "business-as-usual" attitude that is still prevalent in DC. John Boehner - we will be watching your "leadership", it hasn't been all that great so far.
As for the names Republican and Democrat - Perot was right (even a broken clock is right twice a day) - not a dimes worth of difference in the parties. Both are infested with corrupt members intent on building personal power, getting re-elected, and coming up with special favors for their cronies.
The solution to this problem lies squarely in the hands of the voters, as Madison so eloquently stated. Both parties contain insightful, thoughtful members who do posses virtue. It speaks well of the constituents who sent them to DC. Generally they are newer to elected office. A few election cycles tend to rub virtue out of a politician like a cigarette is rubbed out in an ashtray. We will note those members who continue to place country over party as encouragement to them.
As for me, I will continue to promote conservatism. My experience teaches me that the most effective and empowering solutions are rooted in it. At election time it does not mean that just because you have a R next to your name, you will receive my vote or support. To get that prize does not depend on being in the clubhouse, it depends on displaying the virtue called for by the Founders. And some Common Sense.
RLB
Categories: Partisan Politics, Civic Duty, political leadership, Historical perspective
Tags: elections Framers intent political leadership partisan politics
I hope you're not flirting with Independent candidates or a third party. That just gives the majorities to the Democrats. Our only place to go is the GOP.
Reply to this
Arghh! You cannot be advocating for an Independent--gasp! Roy and I voted for Perot, to our dismay. Whomever the Republican is put up against B.O. MUST be voted for. No Independents. Nothing other than "Anyone Other Than Obama." Geez.
Reply to this
This looks like you're addressing Congress more than the Presidency. There is no alternative to the Republican nominee or the Democrat nominee. A third party always helps the Democrats. That said, in principle, our elected representatives need to HAVE principle. Sleazebags out for personal gain are the last thing we need to have in Congress. I think the 2010 election was a strong downpayment on this idea. We may have enough gains in 2012 to make the Obama presidency moot. Still in that contest, no matter who the GOP sendsup, they will make a better President tthan Obama.
Reply to this
Thank you for admitting that there are democrats with virtue. We're not all swamp creatures, just like you guys aren't all gun-toting Neanderthals. Seriously, I agree that the party politics has spawned a really corrupt style of governing. I supported the health care law, and I still do, but some of the deals cut to pass it looked bad because they were bad. Most of the Congress and the Senate have lost sight of our lives in everyday America. I'm not sure what the answer is, but voting for a better type of cndidate has to be part of the answer.
Reply to this
I appreciate your take on this, but I disagree that you have a "rose-colored view." At the end of the day even a power mad Republican will steal less of your money than a Democrat. The last Democrat who didn't want to raise taxes and increase regulation was Jack Kennedy. You've made the point yourself that he wouldn't be welcome in today's Democrat Party. Facts are stubborn things.
Reply to this
Responsible, freedom loving people have no recourse but to try to push Tea Party candidates in the GOP (the Libs will never elect them). Barring that, I'll take any Republican candidate over a Lib. Otherwise it's just suicide.
Reply to this
It's a nice sentiment, but it will be very hard to accomplish the way that Congress is structured. I don't think it'spossible to apply this to the Presidency. As we all are witness, the packaged product is not necessarily what is delivered. Obama was supposed to be a centrist, Bush was supposed to be a fiscal conservative. It's a crapshoot. As to Congress, seniority comes with perks, so the ones with the most power have the least incentive to change the system. I agree that we need principled people working for the good of the country. I just don't see the way there.
Reply to this
There is always a disconnect between the Founders, and the Constitution that we function under now. From the Declaration until adoption of the Constitution in 1787 America operated under the Articles of Confederation, which gave the Federal government extremely limited function. It was just a military and economic alliance between the individual states. The Founders understood the problem of the "career politician" and one of the articles limited members of the Congress to only serving 3 years and then going home to their real job for 3 years before being allowed to return to the federal government. In short, term limits. Somehow, this provision went missing during the Constitutional Convention, probably for the same reason it never came back - power hates a break in power. I submit that federal term limits would solve that problem.
Reply to this
Good luck getting term limits passed by the sitting leeches. I'm going to vote GOP, but I will support a candidate who shows that "virtue" you ention over a RINO or career pond scum. I can't see any Democrat that I could agree with. If I could find one, or one could persuade me of the rightness of their ideas I might consider it. If he was running against some GOP pond scum.
Reply to this
This is a frustrating. The author is calling for the election of people who do the right thing, and most comments say that the Democrats never do the right thing. Remember Clinton and welfare reform. there were a few balanced budgets too. You can say the GOP dragged him there, but he still did the right thing. It was Bush who started all the crazy spending, and Obama added to it. Good ideas are not owned by one party. Party politics are what Washington warned against. Listen to yourselves.
Reply to this
It's not that the Democrats or Republicans are always wrong. The parties formed because of fundamental disagreements about how the problems facing the country can get resolved. The Democrats believe that government has a significant role to play in solving those problems. The Republicans prefer for individual to figure it out by themselves. I'm not making a judgment call, but there are some problems to big for individuals to fix.
Reply to this
See, Kristin - that's not accurate either. Republicans believe in a government role, and that the most effective government is the most accountable government. The most accountable government is thegovernment that is closest to the people - local government. That should always be the first choice for solving problems. The Constitution is based on state government. As Modomn pointed out, under the Articles of Confederation, the states were sovereign and in alliance with each other. They organized and solved problems that were of concern to their assembled communities. What happened inside NJ had nothing to do with what happened in GA,in the same way that what happened in France has nothing to do with what happens in Japan. That was a little too loose knit, so we came up with our current Constitution. Under it a government was createdto provide for a common defense and to settle matters between states. In the stricted sense the only purpose of the federal government is to do that, and since the adoption of the Bill of Rights, to insure that those rights are not infringed without cause. The federal government was not created to set terms for an individuals life. That duty was left to the state governments. The Republicans followthat model. The Democrats do not.
Reply to this
Uh, George W Bush and "No Child Left Behind" and the Medicare Drug Benefit program? Those touch the individual deeply.
Reply to this
My bad - CONSERVATIVES follow that model. George W Bush was a Republican, but he was not a conservative, and he obviously believedin big government. I am reminded of that every time I try to fly anywhere.
Reply to this
Thee another problem with upstanding people to serve in government - how do you convince one to run? As soon as you announce, the political machines are out to discredit you or turn you into a buffoon. Look at Trump. Or Palin. Granted they might not be Presidential material, but dothey really deserve the personal attacks? Sane, upstanding people don't want to subject their families to the process because they see what happens when outsiders try to break in.
Reply to this
Virtue and principles? Constitution based - I have your team. PERRY/DEMINT GOP 2012 would get our Country in order...
Reply to this
Based on your article, which received 100% likes, I support Ron Paul 2012 ! The only reason he is running on the Republican ticket, is, like you say, because people have not yet woken up to the fact that there is no difference between the 2... party myth. I supported "crazy" Ross Perot in 1992, and have been an Independent ever since. Everyone I ask, who didn't vote for him that voted for Bush Sr. said they would have voted for Ross Perot had the media not said Ross couldn't win. Could 19,000,000 people be "crazy"? Or, perhaps - they were awake then?
Reply to this
3rd Party candidates or independents can get elected locally or even to state offices. It's been common practice in the northeast for years. Its when you try to go for the Presidency that it sputters out. The last 3rd party candidateto winit was Abarham Lincoln pulling the republican party out of the ghost of the Whigs. The third party is going to need to grow up in the states before it can take on national status, and that will benefit the Democrats in the meantime.
Reply to this
You can't legislate morality, only behavior. There is no way to guarantee the people we elect will possess virtue. Politicians are liars by nature. We can limit how long they stay in office though. It was mentioned earlier - term limits for all federal offices. I like 3 terms in the House and out. 2 in the Senate. That will make all of them more interested in how what they are doing affects Main Street.
Reply to this