« What is going on? | calgarr's Blog

Oh, crap


Seriously. 

As I keep a close eye on the process of legislating health care reform, I have had time and reason to ponder our political system, and now I'm depressed.  I'm starting to think that it is inevitable that the HCR bill will not be a meaningful improvement, that insurance companies will continue to profit at our expense, and as a result the Democratic majority will go away rather swiftly.  But, I guess that's not a big deal, since they have proven unwilling to make the changes they promised in the first place.  That's right: unwilling.

You see, the thing that struck me with the greatest force was the realization that every action, every word from a congressional legislator is calculated with an eye toward re-election.  They don't actually care (how naive I must sound!) about anything but themselves.  Of course, campaigns cost money, so it is in their best interest to generate capital...and insurance companies sure have a lot of it.  So, in the final analysis, Congress has several reasons to pass a piece of crap bill, and only one reason not to: it would be wrong.  I don't see that stopping them, honestly.

For my entire life (and based on what I've learned about history, quite a while before I was born) politicians have had to be dragged kicking and screaming into any morally necessary reform.  From woman's suffrage to civil rights, there has been no imperative to do the right thing simply because it's the right thing to do.  They always ask "What's in it for me?".  Realizing this, I had to look closely at the founding of this country to see if we have betrayed the ideals our republic was based on...and I'm sad to say we have not.

The phrase "...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  was the second choice of the continental congress, replacing "...life, liberty, and property."  This seems innocent enough, until you remember that in those days only white men could own property, so this statement is an explicit desire to protect the rights of only that group of people.  Of course, this is exacerbated by the knowledge that "...all men are created equal..." also only refers to white men.  Men, because that's the word they used, and white because in those days non-whites were not considered people.  If you doubt it, just remember that most of the members of the continental congress were slave owners.  Jefferson, himself a slave owner, was the most outspoken critic of slavery, but admitted that it was a matter of self-preservation.  From the beginning, precedent was created that encouraged lawmakers to be selfish and unwilling to make meaningful sacrifices in the name of morality.

But how is it possible that so many of our representatives are such despicable, heartless monsters?  Surely some fiery-eyed idealists have gotten involved in politics and tried to make a difference, right?  You bet they have, and they get shut down at every opportunity.  The presidential debates, considered to be the most significant chance for candidates to generate support, are actually conducted by a private corporation which approves or denies specific candidates the right to participate, based on reasons which are entirely their own.  In non-presidential races, morally upstanding idealists are outspent by their rivals (who have no compunctions against taking bribes) and are made the target of irrelevant personal attacks, which they generally decline to reciprocate.  They are beaten before they even begin.

If you want to see proof that this is happening, look no further than Ralph Nader.  I know a lot of people have some sort of mysterious, unexplained grudge against this man, but if you do a little bit of research you will find that he has been a tireless advocate for the American people for his entire political career.  His record of public service far exceeds that of any man who has been elected president in the last 100 years, if not longer.  He has never been implicated in a scandal, never taken a bribe, and always stands by his principles.  Of course, that makes him completely unacceptable as a serious politician, and as a result he has been endlessly slandered for literally no reason, as few if any real charges or accusations have actually been leveled at him.  Instead, he is impugned for being "unreasonable", which is pretty laughable.  And despite all of this, he was denied permission to participate in the 2000 presidential debate for no reason at all.  And, to add insult to injury, local police escorted him off the premises, despite the fact that he had a legitimate ticket to the event and only wanted to watch...from a satellite location!

So you see, our system is designed from the bottom up to protect the wealthy and powerful and allow them to victimize everybody else while claiming to represent them.  It's despicable, it's immoral, and it's not going to change, because money talks.

So what would it take to get meaningful health care reform, and at the same time demonstrate that we the people have had enough of this crap?  Well, it would take a constitutional amendment and an initiative.  You see, there is no provision in the constitution for a referendum (or initiative, as we like to call it) at the federal level.  If an amendment were passed to change that, the question of a robust public option could be decided by the people in a simple majority vote.  What could possibly be more democratic than that?  Of course, it won't happen.  There's a reason it's not in the constitution already: America was never meant to be a democracy.  The reason we elect people to represent us and vote on our behalf is that we need to be protected from ourselves.  Obviously, the average American doesn't know  enough about the complexities of the issues that face us to make responsible decisions.  And we certainly can't be trusted to elect our own leader (imagine what the country would be like if Al Gore had become president after the people elected him-a cleaner environment, more fiscal responsibility...what a nightmare!) so we have representatives to do that for us.  That's why our government is actually a republic, not a democracy.  I'm not kidding.  Look it up.

Seriously. 

14 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

It's been quite obvious to the most casual of observers Health Care Reform was DOA almost from the get go. The republicans were very successful in getting the democrats to agree with dropping key components and replacing them with republican IED's guaranteed to blow up and make the reform effort utterly useless. Odd that a minority has so much clout over the majority to sway their legislative efforts in creating a bill that is repugnant to their base and at the same time gives the minority ample proof democrats can't govern - they can't put together a bill their own constituents want. If the democrats had any sense, they would just throw the abortion they're trying to savage out the window and forget about it until they come to grips with themselves. Too bad the need for legislative reform is upon us, but the people we trust most to do the job right, are too timid to stand up tall, face the opposite and fight toe-to-toe to give the public the kind of legislative reform they are crying out for.

user-pic

By the way, the HCR in it's current form is one I sincerely hope goes down to defeat - it serves republican interests more than the public's needs. Democrats can do better.

user-pic

Yeah, and it's pathetic how Democrats are brainwashing themselves into believing they are doing something progressive. They don't even need Karl Rove anymore. Democrats are doing his work for him. Just look at the mess they've made on abortion and that was in the House!

user-pic

I agree!

user-pic

What about the idea that it could be improved later? Will that be impossible because passing a shoddy bill will boot Dems right out of power?

user-pic

Republic. Correct.

user-pic

"The phrase "...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." was the second choice of the continental congress, replacing "...life, liberty, and property." "

The two are interchangeable and have precisely the same meaning. People at the time understood this very well. People today don't. The word "happiness" meant and still refers to property.

user-pic

I think you are right on this one. For sure.

user-pic

You're right, I never even thought of that. Property = happiness is an interesting idea, and I can see how it would seem logical to the mindset of the time.

user-pic

There should be no private money allowed in campaigns.

Can you imagine if representatives were elected on ideas and not their inherent fund raising ability?

user-pic

I agree that totally eliminating private money would be desirable, but it's probably not feasible, at least under current interpretations of the First Amendment. The alternative, while not ideal, is to dilute the influence of private money by providing so much free media time and other communications resources to candidates that private expenditures lose much of their potency. I believe other nations do a better job than we do in that regard.

Actually, we have taken some steps in that direction. They're called YouTube.

user-pic

People still watch a lot of TV, but there's a day coming when it'll either fade away like print media seems to be on the verge to do, or it will merge into the internet.

user-pic

I agree completely. Almost all the tv I watch is on the internet, as most shows are available for free viewing. The only thing I watch on tv is the Discovery channel, it's the best background noise there is!

user-pic

What about eliminating the secrecy surrounding campaign contributions? Granted, it's not really secret, but it's hardly ever made into common knowledge. I think many voters would be influenced simply by knowing who is buying their candidates.

And what about after someone takes public office? Can't we have rigorous regular audits of their finances to make sure they aren't taking bribes? And shouldn't it be a requirement that all of a public servants finances be public knowledge? I hear sometimes about politicians who don't disclose particulars about their income because it's through such-and-such a corporation or because it's their spouses, not theirs.

Or is all this already in the public domain, and I just don't know where to look...?

Leave a comment

calgarr

user-pic

Following: 4
Followers: 0

Posts
Comments & Recommends


  • Location Oregon
  • Party Independant
  • Politics My political views tend to be mostly liberal, but I don't like identifying with a party because it strips your personality away and acts as a how-to guide for what to think and who to hate. I prefer making those decisions on my own.

Favorites

  • Favorite Blogs This is pretty much it.
  • Favorite Books Everything! Funny fiction, mysteries, non-fiction, I read it all! Even the occasional romance!
  • Favorite Quotes "Man doth not yield himself to the angles, nor unto death utterly, save through the weakness of his feeble will."

Bio

Just a normal guy. Nothing special.

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address