What Would I Do?

I just got a call asking me political questions. It got me thinking....What would I do? And what do I believe?

The question made me question whether I would govern on a practical/utilitarian model or a principled/deontological model. I don't know.

Certain principles must be adhered to, if we want to protect a  Constitutional government. One cannot get too practical without compromising and undermining the basics. But, what are those basics? Are they ideologically driven, or pragmatically negotiated?

Because of such quandaries, I wonder if we are judging some of our politicians, too harshly. Compromise is a necessity if one is to get anything done. Our Founders balanced power for this very reason. They wanted to protect our government from abuses of power. And such is a necessity if we continue to remain free.

What drives me and what concerns me most? What drives or concerns you most?

Representative Government

Representative Government is what we need today. We, the people, are to be valued. We are not a theocracy or a democracy, in the proper sense.

When we represent someone, whether a lawyer in the courts, or a Congressman in the House or Senate, these are to be servant leaders, not arrogant or self-serving in their interests in public office. The people vote because of their confidence in a particular candidate. They believe in the campaign promises, and value the platform the candidate represents.

But, all too often, our representatives are bought off by Big Interests, Special Interests and slough it off as a necessary "gain" for the public interest. The public thinks it has been hoodwinked and it is a recipe for damaging the public's interest in their government and civic duty, at large. There is no end to the news about public officials and their indiscretions when it comes to their public trust.

I wonder, since history has borne out that our Founders, or any of those who we "idealize" have feet of clay, just as our present day politicians do? What we want to remember are the "ideals" that we value. But, because of the public's intense interest in private life, biographies have been written that expose such indiscretions of past representatives. And these books sell. Does America want to be ambivalant toward their government and their Representatives in public office?

Representation is known first in one's family of origin. Psychologists have known that children get their view of "God" through their family, the father, being an important imprinter of the child's value.

In ancient societies where the peasant class had no say about their life, other than to serve their patrons, or slave-masters, "God" was know to be represented by leadership. This was how the peasant class came to formulate their understanding of "God". If an unjust ruler ruled, they deemed that God was "above" or "over" that unjust ruler. Theirs was a passive state of submission to the dominating culture.

Enlightened societies have understood that all people should have a voice and have a sense of empowerment when it comes to their government. This was our Founder's "formula" in the Declaration of Independence. Government was no longer to represent "God", or the "King", but the people.

In the light of limited power and limited government, I wonder if limiting terms in Congress would be a good idea? Would limiting terms to 6 or 8 years, and rotating state elections, where there would always be someone in power that has "been there", and had the experience to "inform" the "freshmen", who are new in the "halls of Congressional power". Would it not only limit Congressmen from building 'empires", legislating laws that promote their own personal interests, and get more people involved in serving their country?

Maybe I need to read up on the reasons why Congress was set to serve with unlimited terms of power. Is it a possibility that what has transpired today was never imagined in the past?

A GAG ORDER???

What is happening to our free society? Why are the American people left in the dark in regards to healthcare legislation?

Congress has to vote on this issue without knowing how much it will costs the American taxpayer!! And yet, these Comgressmen are to be OUR representatives!! American people WAKE UP!! We are being scammed....and why and what for and who is driving this legislation. I think there is more than meets the eye...

Healthcare is 1/6th of the American economy. And we believe AFTER A.C.O.R.N. that we can trust government to do things "right"??? Someone is asking for "blind faith" on our Congressmen's part and "blind trust" on the American people's part....Who is running the "ship" in America?

American doctors are already selling out their 'businesses" so that they do not have to be an assembly line of "healthcare service" under a government beauracracy. I don't blame them. The doctors who have a desire to really take care of their patients needs, do their jobs with utmost excellence, and not regard their patients as another number or quota to make their ends meet, are abandoning ship. They can't afford to make the money they need to and take care of the patients in the way they want to...I admire them.

What will be left of our healthcare providers once these are gone? What young person will seek to serve in this capacity when government will limit them? Will government then "mandate" who will be going to medical school and on what basis will these young people be determined? Will our professionals be governmental "pawns"?

A lot has to be seen. The American people are waiting. And we hope for the best.

Healthcare's Debate

Just tonight on the news, it was reported that an insurance company saw a letter that went out to their members on Medicare Advantage. Medicare Advantage is a program for the poor elderly. In the communication, it was reported that there would be 50% cuts to their healthcare benefits!

Congress discussed their obligation to review and inform their constinuiecies. I applaud those that want to be accountable to "the people" instead of doing what they want and giving us evasive answers to our questions. Or, giving us what we "want to hear" and then going ahead and doing what they want anyway.

We have hope that the judiciary and some in Congress will have enough integrity to uphold our Constitution, in spite of "visions of grandeur".

Our Reality to Come...in the Political Realm

I read where the Republican strategy is to counter the liberal and ultra-conservative, by gaining back a Congressional majority by "centering" themselves. I hope this strategy works.

The strategy is to be to analyze the vacancies and determine whether the State can vote in a Republican or "loose" by voting in a conservative Democrat! This would bring Congress into center, where consensus can be built and legislation can be made concerning issues about our government. A centered Congress may not be ideologically driven along certain conservative or liberal social issues, but could gain much for fiscal and foreign policy. These are the issues that concern America today.

It is speculated that Newt Gingrich will run for the nomination. I hope so, as I have always been impressed with him. He has built consensus, has taught history and understands the political machine enough to know how to lead.

Nationalism, Globalism, and "Tea Parties"

Yesterday, Obama said that he wanted to build our Nation on the "rock". He used scripture, appealing to the religious conservative. While no one disagrees that our Nation has to be built upon a "rock", most conservatives agree that the "rock" is the Constitution. Others find that our globalized world calls for us to "lay down our own interests", so that "the greater good" can be furthered.

Government in conservative eyes, should be to represent the people, private interests, private business and free enterprise, in general. But, with the "bail-outs" and budget over-spending, the conservative feels that government has overstepped its boundary. Government should be limited, so that there is personal freedom.

Today, Obama said that we needed to pay our taxes so that government could pay their bills. Joe Biden said during the campaign that "to pay taxes was to be patriotic". No, when the people pay taxes, so that government can pay their bills, while there is outrageous debt and, yet, government does not limit themselves in their spending, then there is moral outrage. Why? because the people support government, instead of government protecting the people! This is socialism! The common good, the public interests, the higher purpose, etc. all are synonyms for government's justification of "doing good" for us. We, the people, cannot do good ourselves, we are dependent on the government to determine and distribute what, when and where. We, the people, loose our power and control over our lives, not just our money!

What do Americans do? We throw 'tea parties". I just heard today that one lady called her U.S. senator to be told that he and the staff would not be able to participate in the local "tea party" because "tea parties" are a protest against government and since he and staff are government employees, then they are forbidden to go. Who says that on one's own personal time, one cannot participate in any activity that is legal? Is it ia conflict of interests? Has the federal government "laid down the law" that this is not a freedom that any government official is allowed? Does government "control" their employees political convictions and opinions? Is this why we have not heard from Republicans? One just wonders.....

The issue is really a complex one, as it is about national vs. international interests. This is like the old argument of individual vs. societal "rights"...where and how do we determine what to do when globalization is upon us. We have no choice. We do have to address it!

Just today I read where the U. N. had had "problems" with contracting out their interests. Humanitarian aid is a money making business, no matter what anyone says. America has limited her power at the U.N. to regard other "dictatorships". America should not give up her understanding of "right" for any "common purposes" of globalization. And, yet, I know we cannot live without our neighbors. This is what disturbs me about how Obama has repected the Arab nations (bowing) without continuing to honor the 'free world" in his behavior.

On one hand, SOS Clinton did agree to limit the "rights" of the pirates, but was this due to America's interests or humanitarian aid. Would there have been the same or similar opinions if it had been a military expedition?

I don't think that destroying our Nation or the "free world" for the interests of globalization is very wise. We have valid interests to protect and we must not let our freedoms slide into the nebulous, undefined "whole" of globalism.

George Will's Editorial and Legislative Power

This morning's paper had a nice editorial by George Will entitled, "Bail-out Erases Constitutional Boundaries . In it, Mr. Will is calling for Congress to subsist from giving power to the executive branch.

Our Founding Fathers divided power amongst three branches that should not "over-ride" the other. This was what a lot of "hoopla" was about over Bush's abuses at Guatanamo Bay.

The Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) should be considered unconstitutional, as it gives $700 billion to the executive branch to "do as it will", without accountability. This is, in effect legislation, as the executive branch is not dependent on Congress to approve their choices. Congressional leadership is accountable to their constituencies, but the executive branch weilds power for 4 years, without recourse, as long as there is no reason for impeachment.

Americans do not believe in arbitrary power.So, whatever the executive branch determines to do with the $700 billion, they have power of enforcement, and/or sanction, which should be disturbing to the American public. It seems that the Democratically led Congress has given leeway for the executive branch to have this right and power over the people.

The State then has Sovereignty over the sovereignty of the people and the individual American. We have been known as a government that has been "for and by the people". Now, I'm afraid that the government represents their own interests, in the name of the people and for the "people's "good", which limits how the individual can choose their own good.