In comments on my previous post, buddy Larry asks the following:
"Chris Christie is walking the walk. Cutting and reducing the government, fighting the special interests, and helping NJ. How do we identify others who will follow through?"
Now I don't pretend to be a big fan of Governor Christie, but he's about the closest thing to a Libertarian leaning Conservative New Jersey would elect. Still, I think he understands the nature of public service and of holding public office.
To understand what I mean requires a trip back into history. Up until the 20th century people didn't consider politics a career. Most elected officials had successful careers outside of politics, and most served with the intention of returning to those careers after their term was over. They looked at elected office much as modern people look at jury duty, a temporary, unpleasant, but necessary duty incurred by a citizen which allowed our society to function as intended. In addition, political office was a part-time job. You went to Washington DC for a few months a year, did your civic duty, then went home until it was time to go back or until some emergency prompted a special session. You were first a farmer, lawyer, or whatever occupation you followed first and secondarily a Congressman or even President.
Now people study Political Science in school. Congressmen and Senators spend DECADES in office. Some rarely return home to meet with their constituents except when running for re-election. They're more concerned with preserving their own legacies than with representing the people who sent them to Washington in the first place.
So my answer to Larry's question would be, the candidate who will follow through is the one who looks at elected office as a temporary job. He or she probably doesn't particularly WANT the job, but they realize that someone has to do it so it might as well be them. They probably look upon the idea of holding elected office with distaste, again much as we look upon jury duty. On the other hand, a person who wants to hold elected office, who desires deep down to be called "The (insert title) from the great state of (fill in the blank)", who is more concerned with having the title than what they'll do once they get it, should most definitely never be allowed near the levers of power. Unfortunately, there are a whole bunch of people holding office now who fit that description.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Authority
Throughout history people who rule others have had different claimed sources of their authority. Sometimes it's just whoever happens to be stronger, whoever can defend his rule against others who would rule. Sometimes rulers claim that their authority comes from God, or they may even claim to be gods themselves. Sometimes the authority to rule is determined by heredity. In Platos's proposed Republic the philosopher-king was authorized to rule because of his wisdom. Sometimes the ruler is chosen by the majority of the people. In most cases, the ruler or rulers have near absolute authority over the people, and the people exist to support the ruling class.
In July, 1776 Thomas Jefferson and company thundered forth with a radical concept, that all men are created equal, that all men, without exception, are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which were life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That men form governments for the sole purpose of protecting those rights, that a government that fails to protect those rights is not valid and that the people have the right to abolish such a government and form a new one that will protect those rights. That, in short, the government exists to serve the people and not the other way around.
This radical idea turned the political world on its head. No longer could the ruling class do whatever it pleased, no longer were the people powerless in the face of political might. On the contrary, the ruling class existed and continued to exist at the sufferance of the people. They could be replaced any time the people found them not doing the job they were selected for, namely the protection of the rights of the people.
Under such a political system, the ultimate authority rests with the people. The people choose to delegate some of their authority to a group they choose, thereby freeing themselves from the need to protect their own rights individually. My choice of the word "delegate" was intentional. If I delegate someone to act on my behalf, they do so under my direction and at my pleasure. If I ever decide, for any reason, to replace my delegated spokesman I may do so. He may object, but the final decision is mine and mine alone.
We've forgotten that we are the ones with ultimate authority. We have elected officials who look upon the electorate not as employers, but as sources of income. They see their job not as serving the people they represent, but as telling those people whatever they need to in order to be elected, then once in place they do whatever will increase their power despite the promises made to their constituents. Those same constituents accept their representatives lies with a shrug and with the statement "All politicians lie and break their campaign promises." When the 27th Amendment, ratified in 1992 (not only within the lifetimes of most of my readers, but within their adulthoods), states that Congress could not vote itself a change in pay unless an election of the House of Representatives (which is elected in its entirety every two years) had occured since the last such change and they get around it by voting themselves an automatic cost-of-living-adjustment every year, AND the Supreme Court upholds that travesty, it makes me wonder what it would take to send the populace to Washington armed with torches and pitchforks. Such a situation would have had our Founding Fathers reaching for the tar, feathers and rails, not to mention ropes.
We need to reclaim our birthright as Americans. We need to remind our elected officials that they serve at our pleasure and sufference. That they act in our names and for our best interests or they will not act at all. That we are not ruled, we are represented. That they are public servants, not public masters. That they need to employ themselves at our business or they will find themselves among the unemployed.
That's the difference between a citizen and a subject, between a master and a serf, between a free, sovereign individual and a second-class person.
In July, 1776 Thomas Jefferson and company thundered forth with a radical concept, that all men are created equal, that all men, without exception, are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which were life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That men form governments for the sole purpose of protecting those rights, that a government that fails to protect those rights is not valid and that the people have the right to abolish such a government and form a new one that will protect those rights. That, in short, the government exists to serve the people and not the other way around.
This radical idea turned the political world on its head. No longer could the ruling class do whatever it pleased, no longer were the people powerless in the face of political might. On the contrary, the ruling class existed and continued to exist at the sufferance of the people. They could be replaced any time the people found them not doing the job they were selected for, namely the protection of the rights of the people.
Under such a political system, the ultimate authority rests with the people. The people choose to delegate some of their authority to a group they choose, thereby freeing themselves from the need to protect their own rights individually. My choice of the word "delegate" was intentional. If I delegate someone to act on my behalf, they do so under my direction and at my pleasure. If I ever decide, for any reason, to replace my delegated spokesman I may do so. He may object, but the final decision is mine and mine alone.
We've forgotten that we are the ones with ultimate authority. We have elected officials who look upon the electorate not as employers, but as sources of income. They see their job not as serving the people they represent, but as telling those people whatever they need to in order to be elected, then once in place they do whatever will increase their power despite the promises made to their constituents. Those same constituents accept their representatives lies with a shrug and with the statement "All politicians lie and break their campaign promises." When the 27th Amendment, ratified in 1992 (not only within the lifetimes of most of my readers, but within their adulthoods), states that Congress could not vote itself a change in pay unless an election of the House of Representatives (which is elected in its entirety every two years) had occured since the last such change and they get around it by voting themselves an automatic cost-of-living-adjustment every year, AND the Supreme Court upholds that travesty, it makes me wonder what it would take to send the populace to Washington armed with torches and pitchforks. Such a situation would have had our Founding Fathers reaching for the tar, feathers and rails, not to mention ropes.
We need to reclaim our birthright as Americans. We need to remind our elected officials that they serve at our pleasure and sufference. That they act in our names and for our best interests or they will not act at all. That we are not ruled, we are represented. That they are public servants, not public masters. That they need to employ themselves at our business or they will find themselves among the unemployed.
That's the difference between a citizen and a subject, between a master and a serf, between a free, sovereign individual and a second-class person.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)