Now that the dust has settled on the mid-term elections, I have had time to reflect on the dynamics of that exercise in futility. In the light of day and with a little reflection, it really is more of an indictment of our democracy in action than it is an affirmation of all that it should be. We have just entrusted hundreds of people with the treasures of our country with, essentially, no knowledge about them. We have taken at face value all they have told us, all that others have told us, and the images of them created by the professionals in the propaganda and image-making business. That isn’t just astonishing, it is downright frightening.
Should we not, at the very least, require an outline of their basic qualifications, such as their educational background, their work and career experience and their service record?
Shouldn’t we know what we are getting when we open the doors of our nation’s capitol to these strangers who are going to determine our national destiny for God only knows how many years to come?
Shouldn’t that information be an essential part of every voter’s pamphlet we receive preparatory to casting our vote?
Shouldn’t we have some idea as to how well equipped they are to make decisions about the complex issues of our day?
The stuff political parties peddle about those they are championing for public office engender less confidence in me than my friendly used car salesman or store-front lawyer. Yet, we readily yield to them as if they really are honorable and well-intentioned people. Is that crazy or what?
We have entrusted our future and our lives to people who are going to make decisions, on our behalf, about every aspect of the most complex society and economy in the world. Who determined that they are qualified to address any or all of those issues in the 21st Century? For all we know, we may have a cadre of people whose abilities might offer little more than what might might would qualify them to do business in a barter economy. How do we know?
Generally, conflicts of interest are regarded as rather serious issues. However, those we put in government service on our behalf routinely engage in such practices with impunity. They determine their own compensation and benefits packages. They accord themselves perquisites without any oversight by outside third-party watchdogs or by those who vote them into office. Is it surprising that they fall prey to all the temptations to which they are subjected? Is it any wonder they steal us blind? How many could resist the temptations of sums of money unheard of and favors that are exclusively within the purview of the most privileged among us? They quickly evolve into subscribing to a sense of entitlement and believing their own press that comes from living within a bubble that insulates them from the real world. Is that dangerous or what?
We talk about lobbyists and special interests as if they were a given. Who made that determination? Shouldn’t lobbyists simply be outlawed? They do not represent the people of this country. They represent those who, by definition, are adversaries of the people. Why do we belabor, but never do anything about campaign finance reform that would clean up this cesspool that marginalizes those they are supposed to serve, in favor of those who ply them with every conceivable largess from cash to favors they could never have even dreamed of in the life they left behind?
Who said they have the knowledge and experience to effectively deal with the extremely complex issues facing us today? We have a reservoir of some of the greatest minds in the world who have devoted their entire lives to mastering academic disciplines and acquiring experience that are a national treasure. Yet, we never call on them to help solve the very complex and difficult problems we face? Is that even sane?
Politicians have, as their primary objective, re-election. They covet the power, the money and the perquisites that come from doling out their office to the highest bidder. Those who finance their campaigns and ply them with personal favors is their real constituency. Decision-making is by compromise and those they serve are the beneficiaries of the spoils emanating from the political gamesmanship that is at the center of everything they do. Mediocrity is the standard of excellence and we, the voters, pay the price.
Real leadership should have, as its primary objective, doing what is right, with the greatest good for the greatest number. Leaders surround themselves with people they regard as being smarter than they are. They defer to the wisdom and expertise of those people, giving them the freedom to do what they do best. They make decisions based on sound evidence and reasoned deliberations. Their reward is in knowing they have given it their best in the service of their constituents, with their integrity and character in tact.
The last example of real leadership and true statesmanship by a national leader was when John F. Kennedy and those closest to him stared down the Cuban Missile Crisis. We have not seen courage and conviction of that caliber since an assassin’s bullet took his life on that fateful day in Dallas in 1963.
What might have been the outcome of a financial reform effort had a real leader been at the helm? Would the fox guarding the chicken coop have written the very regulations that would control his unbridled greed and blatant thievery? I don’t think so. Rather, the dialogue would have probably conveyed, in so many words, “You took advantage of the American people and the party is over. We have taken back control. And you, Mr. Clinton, can take all of your cronies and corrupt practices back to the darkness from which you came.“
What would have happened if a real leader had insisted on transparency and stared down the slugs of the health care business that have fleeced the American people for decades? Instead, he further enhanced their ability to continue, all accomplished behind closed doors. What if the agent of “Change We Can Believe In” had simply honored his campaign promises?
What would have happened if real leadership had been at the head of the table and had told big pharmaceutical companies, unequivocally, that negotiating with the government was an absolute requirement for their continued business? Nothing discretionary about that. It might have cast a completely different light on the mid-terms.
What would have happened if President Obama had kept his campaign promise to re-open NAFTA and other free-trade agreements? Our industrial base might well be recovering by now instead of spiraling downward into even greater depths of hopelessness.
What would have happened if he had kept all of the other campaign promises he made? Would George W. Bush and Dick Cheney be facing the consequences of their criminal behavior? Would we still be mired down in an even larger debacle in Afghanistan with the sacrifice of precious human life from the least among us, and at a cost of billions, if not trillions of dollars? Would organized labor have received the fair treatment that would have helped to equalize the power between big business and the working people who labor in their service?
And, most important of all, what would have happened if Obama had been a real leader rather than a milquetoast consensus builder, who mouths bipartisanship as a cover for his uncompromising loyalty to the elite, the moneyed and the powerful of this country? What would have happened if all those corrupt and compromised re-treads from the Clinton Administration had been sent packing and he had appointed his own Cabinet to advise him?
I would hazard a guess, all things considered, that our national landscape would have looked much different and would have held far more promise for better than ninety percent of us.
The operating philosophy of conservatives and their penchant for a free-market at any cost is, by definition, aggressive and an assault on the finer aspects of our human nature. Its appeal is to the baser aspects of whom and what we are. Unless I missed something, this country was not built on a sense of entitlement, but on a sense of “liberty and justice for all.” On the other hand, those who tout themselves as being liberals often appear to suffer from delusions of having a superior intellect and a higher calling that entitles them to flaunt laws with which they disagree. After all, we are a nation of laws and it is not within their exclusive purview to determine what is to be regarded as right and just. For example, diversity is a concept in which everyone has a stake and a say. We are one nation, not a collection of individual interests that entitles each of them to remain separate but equal. Nor should the conservatives marginalize them in order to keep them there. It is arrogance and, frankly, an ignorance that is an affront to a basic sense of fairness. The bottom line on the balance sheet is that human beings who do honest labor are not just a consumable resource with no right to ascend the ladder of opportunity in order to better themselves. Regardless of who harbors those attitudes, I find them offensive. The notion that all of us are created equal is a myth. It belies the validity of differences in genetic make-up, intelligence, and all one inherits as his/her birthright. To the extent that places people at an extreme disadvantage within the context of society, there has to be some means for leveling the playing field. That is simply the fair and decent thing to do.
I am not so sure our system of government is capable of cleansing itself of the toxic forces that permeate every aspect of the power they hold. I am not so sure we can go back to a time when the honor and decency we expect from those we elect to public office can be rekindled. Have we evolved so far into the swill of what so much of modern-day society holds out to us that we cannot even conceptualize, much less legitimize, the finer aspects of who and what we should be as a people?
Personally, given the complexity of our society and the demands of being a responsible member of the world community, I have serious doubts that our form of democracy can remain viable. I have arrived at the point where I am persuaded that a parliamentary system of government, firmly resting on a foundation of a Scandinavian-style of progressive socialism, may well be the most effective model for addressing the complexity of the domestic and global issues facing us today.
On the other hand, perhaps the only place we can, realistically, start is through the avenue of a new political party, where we can restore the ideals of honesty, integrity and courage in government and that are so essential to our national leadership. It is highly unlikely we will ever get it from the two major political parties. I do not regard the Tea Party as a viable option.
Our institutions, despite the overwhelming influence of dishonesty and cowardice within our political system, still retain an abundance of the kind of enlightened and dedicated talent we need in order to bring about that change. Sadly, some of the best fell victim to the emotional hysteria created by some of those who currently dominate the political scene. However, one need not look long and hard to identify them. They are there, many of whom still hold out hope that there will be an opportunity for them to demonstrate their mettle to a nation crying for help.
A ship without a rudder goes nowhere. That is, in my opinion, the fundamental problem we face. I see people like Chuck Hagel, Bill Bradley, James Webb and, yes, Eliot Spitzer as embodying many of the qualities of leadership we need in order to point us in the right direction.
The future looks bleak and is just cause for despair. It is going to take a long time to get out of the disaster that has descended upon us. However, let us never give up hope. Let us never relax our vigilance. Let us never stop trying. When determination fades and hope is gone, we have nothing.
Cowboy Bob
November 22, 2010
Should we not, at the very least, require an outline of their basic qualifications, such as their educational background, their work and career experience and their service record?
Shouldn’t we know what we are getting when we open the doors of our nation’s capitol to these strangers who are going to determine our national destiny for God only knows how many years to come?
Shouldn’t that information be an essential part of every voter’s pamphlet we receive preparatory to casting our vote?
Shouldn’t we have some idea as to how well equipped they are to make decisions about the complex issues of our day?
The stuff political parties peddle about those they are championing for public office engender less confidence in me than my friendly used car salesman or store-front lawyer. Yet, we readily yield to them as if they really are honorable and well-intentioned people. Is that crazy or what?
We have entrusted our future and our lives to people who are going to make decisions, on our behalf, about every aspect of the most complex society and economy in the world. Who determined that they are qualified to address any or all of those issues in the 21st Century? For all we know, we may have a cadre of people whose abilities might offer little more than what might might would qualify them to do business in a barter economy. How do we know?
Generally, conflicts of interest are regarded as rather serious issues. However, those we put in government service on our behalf routinely engage in such practices with impunity. They determine their own compensation and benefits packages. They accord themselves perquisites without any oversight by outside third-party watchdogs or by those who vote them into office. Is it surprising that they fall prey to all the temptations to which they are subjected? Is it any wonder they steal us blind? How many could resist the temptations of sums of money unheard of and favors that are exclusively within the purview of the most privileged among us? They quickly evolve into subscribing to a sense of entitlement and believing their own press that comes from living within a bubble that insulates them from the real world. Is that dangerous or what?
We talk about lobbyists and special interests as if they were a given. Who made that determination? Shouldn’t lobbyists simply be outlawed? They do not represent the people of this country. They represent those who, by definition, are adversaries of the people. Why do we belabor, but never do anything about campaign finance reform that would clean up this cesspool that marginalizes those they are supposed to serve, in favor of those who ply them with every conceivable largess from cash to favors they could never have even dreamed of in the life they left behind?
Who said they have the knowledge and experience to effectively deal with the extremely complex issues facing us today? We have a reservoir of some of the greatest minds in the world who have devoted their entire lives to mastering academic disciplines and acquiring experience that are a national treasure. Yet, we never call on them to help solve the very complex and difficult problems we face? Is that even sane?
Politicians have, as their primary objective, re-election. They covet the power, the money and the perquisites that come from doling out their office to the highest bidder. Those who finance their campaigns and ply them with personal favors is their real constituency. Decision-making is by compromise and those they serve are the beneficiaries of the spoils emanating from the political gamesmanship that is at the center of everything they do. Mediocrity is the standard of excellence and we, the voters, pay the price.
Real leadership should have, as its primary objective, doing what is right, with the greatest good for the greatest number. Leaders surround themselves with people they regard as being smarter than they are. They defer to the wisdom and expertise of those people, giving them the freedom to do what they do best. They make decisions based on sound evidence and reasoned deliberations. Their reward is in knowing they have given it their best in the service of their constituents, with their integrity and character in tact.
The last example of real leadership and true statesmanship by a national leader was when John F. Kennedy and those closest to him stared down the Cuban Missile Crisis. We have not seen courage and conviction of that caliber since an assassin’s bullet took his life on that fateful day in Dallas in 1963.
What might have been the outcome of a financial reform effort had a real leader been at the helm? Would the fox guarding the chicken coop have written the very regulations that would control his unbridled greed and blatant thievery? I don’t think so. Rather, the dialogue would have probably conveyed, in so many words, “You took advantage of the American people and the party is over. We have taken back control. And you, Mr. Clinton, can take all of your cronies and corrupt practices back to the darkness from which you came.“
What would have happened if a real leader had insisted on transparency and stared down the slugs of the health care business that have fleeced the American people for decades? Instead, he further enhanced their ability to continue, all accomplished behind closed doors. What if the agent of “Change We Can Believe In” had simply honored his campaign promises?
What would have happened if real leadership had been at the head of the table and had told big pharmaceutical companies, unequivocally, that negotiating with the government was an absolute requirement for their continued business? Nothing discretionary about that. It might have cast a completely different light on the mid-terms.
What would have happened if President Obama had kept his campaign promise to re-open NAFTA and other free-trade agreements? Our industrial base might well be recovering by now instead of spiraling downward into even greater depths of hopelessness.
What would have happened if he had kept all of the other campaign promises he made? Would George W. Bush and Dick Cheney be facing the consequences of their criminal behavior? Would we still be mired down in an even larger debacle in Afghanistan with the sacrifice of precious human life from the least among us, and at a cost of billions, if not trillions of dollars? Would organized labor have received the fair treatment that would have helped to equalize the power between big business and the working people who labor in their service?
And, most important of all, what would have happened if Obama had been a real leader rather than a milquetoast consensus builder, who mouths bipartisanship as a cover for his uncompromising loyalty to the elite, the moneyed and the powerful of this country? What would have happened if all those corrupt and compromised re-treads from the Clinton Administration had been sent packing and he had appointed his own Cabinet to advise him?
I would hazard a guess, all things considered, that our national landscape would have looked much different and would have held far more promise for better than ninety percent of us.
The operating philosophy of conservatives and their penchant for a free-market at any cost is, by definition, aggressive and an assault on the finer aspects of our human nature. Its appeal is to the baser aspects of whom and what we are. Unless I missed something, this country was not built on a sense of entitlement, but on a sense of “liberty and justice for all.” On the other hand, those who tout themselves as being liberals often appear to suffer from delusions of having a superior intellect and a higher calling that entitles them to flaunt laws with which they disagree. After all, we are a nation of laws and it is not within their exclusive purview to determine what is to be regarded as right and just. For example, diversity is a concept in which everyone has a stake and a say. We are one nation, not a collection of individual interests that entitles each of them to remain separate but equal. Nor should the conservatives marginalize them in order to keep them there. It is arrogance and, frankly, an ignorance that is an affront to a basic sense of fairness. The bottom line on the balance sheet is that human beings who do honest labor are not just a consumable resource with no right to ascend the ladder of opportunity in order to better themselves. Regardless of who harbors those attitudes, I find them offensive. The notion that all of us are created equal is a myth. It belies the validity of differences in genetic make-up, intelligence, and all one inherits as his/her birthright. To the extent that places people at an extreme disadvantage within the context of society, there has to be some means for leveling the playing field. That is simply the fair and decent thing to do.
I am not so sure our system of government is capable of cleansing itself of the toxic forces that permeate every aspect of the power they hold. I am not so sure we can go back to a time when the honor and decency we expect from those we elect to public office can be rekindled. Have we evolved so far into the swill of what so much of modern-day society holds out to us that we cannot even conceptualize, much less legitimize, the finer aspects of who and what we should be as a people?
Personally, given the complexity of our society and the demands of being a responsible member of the world community, I have serious doubts that our form of democracy can remain viable. I have arrived at the point where I am persuaded that a parliamentary system of government, firmly resting on a foundation of a Scandinavian-style of progressive socialism, may well be the most effective model for addressing the complexity of the domestic and global issues facing us today.
On the other hand, perhaps the only place we can, realistically, start is through the avenue of a new political party, where we can restore the ideals of honesty, integrity and courage in government and that are so essential to our national leadership. It is highly unlikely we will ever get it from the two major political parties. I do not regard the Tea Party as a viable option.
Our institutions, despite the overwhelming influence of dishonesty and cowardice within our political system, still retain an abundance of the kind of enlightened and dedicated talent we need in order to bring about that change. Sadly, some of the best fell victim to the emotional hysteria created by some of those who currently dominate the political scene. However, one need not look long and hard to identify them. They are there, many of whom still hold out hope that there will be an opportunity for them to demonstrate their mettle to a nation crying for help.
A ship without a rudder goes nowhere. That is, in my opinion, the fundamental problem we face. I see people like Chuck Hagel, Bill Bradley, James Webb and, yes, Eliot Spitzer as embodying many of the qualities of leadership we need in order to point us in the right direction.
The future looks bleak and is just cause for despair. It is going to take a long time to get out of the disaster that has descended upon us. However, let us never give up hope. Let us never relax our vigilance. Let us never stop trying. When determination fades and hope is gone, we have nothing.
Cowboy Bob
November 22, 2010
No comments:
Post a Comment