1. Introduction and Purpose
.... In the past, political activists have tended to chart their course and measure their effectiveness by elections. This posting will pose a more fundamental challenge:
.
.... If our woes can be fixed by elections alone, then to an unhealthy extent we are a nation of men (whether good or bad) rather than a nation of laws. As such, good men can only buy us time until the bad ones return; and in the meantime, the tendency of politics is to corrupt even the good ones.
.
.... Therefore, our founding fathers would have looked beyond the need for good candidates and perceived a systemic problem -- and their solution would have been to scrutinize the balance of powers. The governmental branches should naturally check each others excesses, with the American people as a watchdog over all. But somehow this balance has been disturbed, or new ways have been found to circumvent it.
.
.... This blog was created to discuss the situation and to share ideas for correcting it, based on carefully considered principles that our founding fathers would have appreciated. A constructive debate is encouraged.
1 Comments:
Loren, you've cited many good government reforms. You are a true reformist. The problem is those in need of reform are the ones who would move on reform, and your ideas will probably remain only ideology. Very good ideology, I think. Your state 3/4 ratification may have the best shot, until it hits DC and is punted back. Could make a real federal case out of that one, get public support and fight on for years. The presidential pardon is based on the integrity of the president who pardons. Compare the Bush family's pardons to the Clintons. Animosities of opposing parties are nothing new, just revived since the '94 Republican Revolution. When Burr shot Hamilton dead, that was animosity. Corruption of power to pad pockets and flow with the sludge showed itself a reality when watching the Contract with America eventually morph into status quo gravy. Congress tried to pull Mr. Smith Goes to Washington out of theaters when it came out in the 40s. Pretty good shot at the machine.
I think the one true hope of reform we could vote for state by state and in national office is your term limit factor. That has been my factor, a little more simplified for a number of years. Give the House and the Senate the same term the president has, 8 years maximum. If they don't serve the people in their first 4-year term, they get voted out and another potential 8 years begins with a newly elected candidate. No insane every two-year election cycles for congressman. In the two short years they now serve before enduring re-election that have only enough time to tow the party line, raise money, and it’s show time again. And no seemingly inexhaustible 6 year term for senators. The powers rendered them by DC elite are royal. Any Senator by refusal of unanimous consent can kill any bill at any time. Rules Committees can too. Level the playing field of constituent service. Each senator should serve a 4-year term with an end of term election to serve one more 4-year term. This is what the founders had in mind, though simpler. Once elected spend three hard-pressed years of service, and a fourth conflicted with re-election. At the end of 8 years, back to the private sector - without the huge retirement salary. Something half of what they get now, to get them back to work and serving the interests of America. This would head off potential career-seeking politicians, winnow the candidates out, and give them one purpose-serve your state, not yourself. I know kingdom building would happen even within this term system. But it would change the perspective, and get some bums out.
Enough said.
Mark Norris
Lawton, OK
By
Mark Norris, at August 12, 2010 at 6:08 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home