Today POLITICO.com carried a report entitled, "Poll: 81% unhappy with government."* The article states:
"A record-high number of Americans say they are dissatisfied with the way the nation is being governed, a new poll says.
An overwhelming majority of respondents, 81 percent, said that they are not satisfied with the governance of the country, compared with 19 percent who are satisfied, according to Gallup."
I read through most of the 50 blog comments provided by readers in response to the article. The majority were the typical bashing of one party or the other and playing the blame game. We must wake up to the fact that by engaging in these behaviors we are contributing to our own frustration and feelings of dissatisfaction.
We can play the blame game all we want. However, if we want credible change we must take a look in the mirror and face the truth that we are to blame. Politicians behave like they do, and the governing process unfolds like it does, because we let it happen. Every two years we can vote out every House member and 1/3 of all Senators. But, we don't, then wonder why we are dissatisfied with Congress and the governing process.
As long as we validate career politicians' behaviors with our voting patterns, they will not change those behaviors. It is only logical that they feel justified in acting the way they do when we re-elect them time and time again.
Only when we change our patterns of thinking and behaving will politicians change their behaviors. Only when we make elections the means of achieving accountability will we restore confidence in the governing process.
*The article can be found at:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/64390.html
Monday, September 26, 2011
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
We're Conflicted
Today Yahoo carried a blog entry on its "The Ticket" page by Rachel Rose Hartman titled, "Poll suggests 2012 change in power in Washington." *
In the entry Ms. Hartman sites a USA Today/Gallup poll:
"Only 24 percent of all adults surveyed in the USA Today/Gallup poll said most members of Congress deserve re-election 'the lowest percentage since Gallup began asking the question in 1991' the newspaper reports."
The entry also states, "However, the poll shows that 56 percent of adults believe their own representative deserves re-election."
Something doesn't seem quite right. A fairly substantial majority thinks most members of Congress should go, yet, albeit smaller, a majority also thinks their own representative deserves re-election. The attitude seems to be, your guy is the problem, not mine. You vote your guy out because I'm going to keep voting for my guy.
So who has the courage to follow their convictions and vote their guy out? Apparently not enough people to make any real difference. Consequently, we continue to help perpetuate a dysfunctional political process that serves the interests of career politicians to our own detriment.
* The blog entry can be retrieved from:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/poll-suggests-2012-change-power-washington-131541841.html
In the entry Ms. Hartman sites a USA Today/Gallup poll:
"Only 24 percent of all adults surveyed in the USA Today/Gallup poll said most members of Congress deserve re-election 'the lowest percentage since Gallup began asking the question in 1991' the newspaper reports."
The entry also states, "However, the poll shows that 56 percent of adults believe their own representative deserves re-election."
Something doesn't seem quite right. A fairly substantial majority thinks most members of Congress should go, yet, albeit smaller, a majority also thinks their own representative deserves re-election. The attitude seems to be, your guy is the problem, not mine. You vote your guy out because I'm going to keep voting for my guy.
So who has the courage to follow their convictions and vote their guy out? Apparently not enough people to make any real difference. Consequently, we continue to help perpetuate a dysfunctional political process that serves the interests of career politicians to our own detriment.
* The blog entry can be retrieved from:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/poll-suggests-2012-change-power-washington-131541841.html
Monday, August 8, 2011
What China has to say. Does it matter? You be the judge.
On August 6, Yahoo carried a Reuters report by Walter Brandimarte and Melanie Lee titled, "China tells U.S. 'good old days' of borrowing are over"* The report states:
"China bluntly criticized the United States on Saturday one day after the superpower's credit rating was downgraded, saying the 'good old days' of borrowing were over.
Standard & Poor's cut the U.S. long-term credit rating from top-tier AAA by a notch to AA-plus on Friday over concerns about the nation's budget deficits and climbing debt burden.
China -- the United States' biggest creditor -- said Washington only had itself to blame for its plight and called for a new stable global reserve currency.
'The U.S. government has to come to terms with the painful fact that the good old days when it could just borrow its way out of messes of its own making are finally gone,' China's official Xinhua news agency said in a commentary.
In the Xinhua commentary, China scorned the United States for its 'debt addiction' and 'short sighted' political wrangling.
'China, the largest creditor of the world's sole superpower, has every right now to demand the United States address its structural debt problems and ensure the safety of China's dollar assets,' it said.
It urged the United States to cut military and social welfare expenditure. Further credit downgrades would very likely undermine the world economic recovery and trigger new rounds of financial turmoil, it said.
'International supervision over the issue of U.S. dollars should be introduced and a new, stable and secured global reserve currency may also be an option to avert a catastrophe caused by any single country,' Xinhua said."
I take one exception to this article. The authors state that China is our largest creditor. That is not true. According to the US Treasury, in May 2011** all foreign investment in US securities equaled $4.514T. China owned the largest share of that amount at $1.1598T. The total national debt is over $14T. China's amount represents about 8.25% of that total. Significant, yes, but that does not make them our largest creditor.
However, that being said, should we just ignore what the Xinhua agency said. No, because they make some very valid points. Like, "The U.S. government has to come to terms with the painful fact that the good old days when it could just borrow its way out of messes of its own making are finally gone." Is this just rhetoric? Perhaps, but even our own elected officials agree we cannot continue to support all our programs by borrowing. I find it most interesting that the Chinese are able to recognize that the messes are of our "own making," but we can't.
I think this comment is very telling, "China scorned the United States for its 'debt addiction' and 'short sighted' political wrangling." Do we have a debt addiction? I think the answer is pretty obvious. I like their use of the term "wrangling" when they describe our political process. Webster says wrangle is a verb meaning "to argue; quarrel, esp. noisily." Clearly, on important issues like the debt ceiling debate the parties like to quarrel noisily.
"International supervision over the issue of U.S. dollars should be introduced and a new, stable and secured global reserve currency may also be an option to avert a catastrophe caused by any single country." This is perhaps the most profound contention China makes.
Debt is a form of bondage; it limits one's ability to act and makes one more susceptible to be acted upon. What does China mean by stating the dollar should be subject to "international supervision?" It means losing our sovereignty and the ability to control our own destiny. Greece lost its freedom to act and instead was acted upon by the European Union's demands for austerity measures.
We must not allow ourselves to be complacent and think it could never happen to us.
* The Reuters article can be found at:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/06/crisis-idUSLDE77504C20110806
** The Department of the Treasury data can be found at:
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Documents/mfh.txt
"China bluntly criticized the United States on Saturday one day after the superpower's credit rating was downgraded, saying the 'good old days' of borrowing were over.
Standard & Poor's cut the U.S. long-term credit rating from top-tier AAA by a notch to AA-plus on Friday over concerns about the nation's budget deficits and climbing debt burden.
China -- the United States' biggest creditor -- said Washington only had itself to blame for its plight and called for a new stable global reserve currency.
'The U.S. government has to come to terms with the painful fact that the good old days when it could just borrow its way out of messes of its own making are finally gone,' China's official Xinhua news agency said in a commentary.
In the Xinhua commentary, China scorned the United States for its 'debt addiction' and 'short sighted' political wrangling.
'China, the largest creditor of the world's sole superpower, has every right now to demand the United States address its structural debt problems and ensure the safety of China's dollar assets,' it said.
It urged the United States to cut military and social welfare expenditure. Further credit downgrades would very likely undermine the world economic recovery and trigger new rounds of financial turmoil, it said.
'International supervision over the issue of U.S. dollars should be introduced and a new, stable and secured global reserve currency may also be an option to avert a catastrophe caused by any single country,' Xinhua said."
I take one exception to this article. The authors state that China is our largest creditor. That is not true. According to the US Treasury, in May 2011** all foreign investment in US securities equaled $4.514T. China owned the largest share of that amount at $1.1598T. The total national debt is over $14T. China's amount represents about 8.25% of that total. Significant, yes, but that does not make them our largest creditor.
However, that being said, should we just ignore what the Xinhua agency said. No, because they make some very valid points. Like, "The U.S. government has to come to terms with the painful fact that the good old days when it could just borrow its way out of messes of its own making are finally gone." Is this just rhetoric? Perhaps, but even our own elected officials agree we cannot continue to support all our programs by borrowing. I find it most interesting that the Chinese are able to recognize that the messes are of our "own making," but we can't.
I think this comment is very telling, "China scorned the United States for its 'debt addiction' and 'short sighted' political wrangling." Do we have a debt addiction? I think the answer is pretty obvious. I like their use of the term "wrangling" when they describe our political process. Webster says wrangle is a verb meaning "to argue; quarrel, esp. noisily." Clearly, on important issues like the debt ceiling debate the parties like to quarrel noisily.
"International supervision over the issue of U.S. dollars should be introduced and a new, stable and secured global reserve currency may also be an option to avert a catastrophe caused by any single country." This is perhaps the most profound contention China makes.
Debt is a form of bondage; it limits one's ability to act and makes one more susceptible to be acted upon. What does China mean by stating the dollar should be subject to "international supervision?" It means losing our sovereignty and the ability to control our own destiny. Greece lost its freedom to act and instead was acted upon by the European Union's demands for austerity measures.
We must not allow ourselves to be complacent and think it could never happen to us.
* The Reuters article can be found at:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/06/crisis-idUSLDE77504C20110806
** The Department of the Treasury data can be found at:
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Documents/mfh.txt
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
In their own words.
Today, CNN carried a report by Alan Silverleib and Tom Cohen titled, "Obama signs debt ceiling bill, ends crisis."* The article states, "Obama praised the deal as 'an important first step for ensuring that as a nation we live within our means.'"
The article also states, "...the American economy 'didn't need Washington to come along with a manufactured crisis,' the president noted. 'It's pretty likely that the uncertainty surrounding the raising of the debt ceiling -- for both businesses and consumers -- has been unsettling, and just one more impediment to the full recovery that we need. And it was something that we could have avoided entirely. Voters may have chosen divided government, but they sure didn't vote for dysfunctional government,' the president said."
The last paragraph says:
"'I think all of us need to reflect on how these institutions are conducting themselves, how members are conducting themselves,' said Sen. Kent Conrad, D-North Dakota, who has announced he is not seeking re-election next year. 'We need to think about why are we really here. We're here to solve problems. We're not here to worry about the next election, and unfortunately there's too much focus on pure partisan politics and not enough focus on solving problems confronting the country.'"
I have italicized statements for emphasis. They are not italicized in the article.
Now let's enter the POLITIZONE and see what is really going on.
In his own words Obama admits that the debt ceiling crisis was "manufactured." To what ends? Then he admits "it was something that we could have avoided entirely." So why didn't they.
To know why, re-read Conrads comments above.
In his own words Conrad acknowledges that career politicians are more interested in their long careers in public service than they are in "solving problems confronting the country." I find it interesting that Conrad is willing to speak so candidly now that he is retiring from the Senate after serving for 25 years!
To stop the political insanity WE must put a stop to political careerism.
*The CNN article can be found at:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/08/02/debt.talks/index.html?hpt=hp_bn4
The article also states, "...the American economy 'didn't need Washington to come along with a manufactured crisis,' the president noted. 'It's pretty likely that the uncertainty surrounding the raising of the debt ceiling -- for both businesses and consumers -- has been unsettling, and just one more impediment to the full recovery that we need. And it was something that we could have avoided entirely. Voters may have chosen divided government, but they sure didn't vote for dysfunctional government,' the president said."
The last paragraph says:
"'I think all of us need to reflect on how these institutions are conducting themselves, how members are conducting themselves,' said Sen. Kent Conrad, D-North Dakota, who has announced he is not seeking re-election next year. 'We need to think about why are we really here. We're here to solve problems. We're not here to worry about the next election, and unfortunately there's too much focus on pure partisan politics and not enough focus on solving problems confronting the country.'"
I have italicized statements for emphasis. They are not italicized in the article.
Now let's enter the POLITIZONE and see what is really going on.
In his own words Obama admits that the debt ceiling crisis was "manufactured." To what ends? Then he admits "it was something that we could have avoided entirely." So why didn't they.
To know why, re-read Conrads comments above.
In his own words Conrad acknowledges that career politicians are more interested in their long careers in public service than they are in "solving problems confronting the country." I find it interesting that Conrad is willing to speak so candidly now that he is retiring from the Senate after serving for 25 years!
To stop the political insanity WE must put a stop to political careerism.
*The CNN article can be found at:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/08/02/debt.talks/index.html?hpt=hp_bn4
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Disappointed? Yes. Suprised? No.
Our ship of state is still off course. Am I disappointed? Yes. Am I surprised? No.
Today Yahoo.com carried a Reuters report by Tim Reid and Emily Kaiser titled, "Debt deal set to pass but what were the costs?"* Their report provides valuable insights into the outcomes of the debt ceiling debate. They wrote, "While the immediate crisis over a threatened default seems to have been averted by the eleventh-hour deal between the White House and Congress, the debt-limit drama has left behind crucial questions about the American political process...." They also stated, "The long, tortured debate exposed toxic partisanship and legislative dysfunction in Washington just when judicious efforts at reform were most needed, shaking the faith of international investors and ordinary Americans alike."
The authors quote economists Christina Romer, formerly on Obama's Council of Economic Advisors, and Stephen Roach, a Yale lecturer and non-executive chairman of Morgan Stanley. Romer states, "If we don't deal with these deficits there is no way we won't eventually default and become a much weaker country."
Roach stated:
"Make no mistake, we are not getting a major breakthrough in America's fiscal dilemma out of this deal. Talk about kicking the can down the road - this is probably the biggest can that's ever been kicked."
Now let's enter the POLITIZONE and see what is really going on.
Our career politicians behaved just as expected; they avoided political risk and instead did what was politically expedient by "kicking the can down the road." They then had the audacity to fawn all over themselves about what a great job they did for "the American people." What do you think? Did they act in the interests of the American people?
My hope is that as Reid and Kaiser pointed out, that "the debt-limit drama has left behind crucial questions about the American political process," is true. That would be the most beneficial result from this latest insanity from our career politicians and the two parties that support them. The problem is the process itself.
We hope for change. We vote for change. But, nothing really changes. To enjoy credible change we must begin to question the process.
* The Yahoo.com report can be found at http://news.yahoo.com/debt-deal-set-pass-were-costs-045917154.html
Today Yahoo.com carried a Reuters report by Tim Reid and Emily Kaiser titled, "Debt deal set to pass but what were the costs?"* Their report provides valuable insights into the outcomes of the debt ceiling debate. They wrote, "While the immediate crisis over a threatened default seems to have been averted by the eleventh-hour deal between the White House and Congress, the debt-limit drama has left behind crucial questions about the American political process...." They also stated, "The long, tortured debate exposed toxic partisanship and legislative dysfunction in Washington just when judicious efforts at reform were most needed, shaking the faith of international investors and ordinary Americans alike."
The authors quote economists Christina Romer, formerly on Obama's Council of Economic Advisors, and Stephen Roach, a Yale lecturer and non-executive chairman of Morgan Stanley. Romer states, "If we don't deal with these deficits there is no way we won't eventually default and become a much weaker country."
Roach stated:
"Make no mistake, we are not getting a major breakthrough in America's fiscal dilemma out of this deal. Talk about kicking the can down the road - this is probably the biggest can that's ever been kicked."
Now let's enter the POLITIZONE and see what is really going on.
Our career politicians behaved just as expected; they avoided political risk and instead did what was politically expedient by "kicking the can down the road." They then had the audacity to fawn all over themselves about what a great job they did for "the American people." What do you think? Did they act in the interests of the American people?
My hope is that as Reid and Kaiser pointed out, that "the debt-limit drama has left behind crucial questions about the American political process," is true. That would be the most beneficial result from this latest insanity from our career politicians and the two parties that support them. The problem is the process itself.
We hope for change. We vote for change. But, nothing really changes. To enjoy credible change we must begin to question the process.
* The Yahoo.com report can be found at http://news.yahoo.com/debt-deal-set-pass-were-costs-045917154.html
Saturday, July 30, 2011
"For the American people."
Today Yahoo.com carried an Associated Press (AP) report by Andrew Taylor titled, "Dems, GOP still at loggerheads as clock ticks."* The article quotes President Obama:
"'There is very little time,' President Barack Obama said Saturday in his weekly radio and Internet address. He called for an end to political gamesmanship, saying 'the time for compromise on behalf of the American people is now.'"
Obama claims "there is very little time." His administration's messaging has been that on August 2nd the government will begin to default on its obligations. So, based on that messaging there is indeed very little time. We're almost there, so he says, 'the time for compromise on behalf of the American people is now.'" And, what is his solution to reach a compromise, end "political gamesmanship."
Now let's enter the POLITIZONE and see what is really going on.
To reach a compromise he called for an end to "political gamesmanship." Why did he say that? Because it makes him sound presidential. He is attempting to build the perception that he is above the fray and is displaying leadership. But, what he is really doing is acknowledging the fact that the political games the parties and their leadership (of which he is one) have been engaged in have precipitated the very crisis we now face. My question is, if the games must now be ended as he contends to reach a compromise, to what ends have they been pursued up until this point?
I find it so disingenuous when politicians invoke the interests of "the American people" when they speak.
Has it been in the interests of the American people for the parties and their leadership to engage in their political games? Obama stated that, "the time for compromise on behalf of the American people is now." Think about that comment for a moment. Why now? Why not months ago? If our politicians really cared about the interests of the American people wouldn't they have reached a compromise much sooner and avoided a crisis? Now the administration scares the old and infirm by threatening their Social Security payments. Doesn't that constitute political gamesmanship?
Political careerism creates a conflict of interest for our elected officials. Political gamesmanship is a euphemism for the actions and behaviors they engage in as they pursue their long careers in "public service." We elect them to serve us and represent our interests. However, their natural tendency is to act and behave in ways that enhance the chances of advancing their careers. Consequently, their self-serving interests supersede the interests of constituents and the imperative need to find long term solutions to the Nation's problems.
*The link to the AP story is:
http://news.yahoo.com/dems-gop-still-loggerheads-clock-ticks-074111936.html
"'There is very little time,' President Barack Obama said Saturday in his weekly radio and Internet address. He called for an end to political gamesmanship, saying 'the time for compromise on behalf of the American people is now.'"
Obama claims "there is very little time." His administration's messaging has been that on August 2nd the government will begin to default on its obligations. So, based on that messaging there is indeed very little time. We're almost there, so he says, 'the time for compromise on behalf of the American people is now.'" And, what is his solution to reach a compromise, end "political gamesmanship."
Now let's enter the POLITIZONE and see what is really going on.
To reach a compromise he called for an end to "political gamesmanship." Why did he say that? Because it makes him sound presidential. He is attempting to build the perception that he is above the fray and is displaying leadership. But, what he is really doing is acknowledging the fact that the political games the parties and their leadership (of which he is one) have been engaged in have precipitated the very crisis we now face. My question is, if the games must now be ended as he contends to reach a compromise, to what ends have they been pursued up until this point?
I find it so disingenuous when politicians invoke the interests of "the American people" when they speak.
Has it been in the interests of the American people for the parties and their leadership to engage in their political games? Obama stated that, "the time for compromise on behalf of the American people is now." Think about that comment for a moment. Why now? Why not months ago? If our politicians really cared about the interests of the American people wouldn't they have reached a compromise much sooner and avoided a crisis? Now the administration scares the old and infirm by threatening their Social Security payments. Doesn't that constitute political gamesmanship?
Political careerism creates a conflict of interest for our elected officials. Political gamesmanship is a euphemism for the actions and behaviors they engage in as they pursue their long careers in "public service." We elect them to serve us and represent our interests. However, their natural tendency is to act and behave in ways that enhance the chances of advancing their careers. Consequently, their self-serving interests supersede the interests of constituents and the imperative need to find long term solutions to the Nation's problems.
*The link to the AP story is:
http://news.yahoo.com/dems-gop-still-loggerheads-clock-ticks-074111936.html
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah
Today, POLITICO carried a report entitled, "Obama: 'Do what's right for country,' highlighting comments from his weekly address to the Nation.* In his comments about the debt ceiling debate he stated:
"We need an approach that goes after waste in the budget and gets rid of pet projects that cost billions of dollars,” he said. “We need an approach that makes some serious cuts to worthy programs – cuts I wouldn’t make under normal circumstances. And we need an approach that asks everybody to do their part.”
Now let's enter the POLITIZONE and see what is really going on.
What on earth does Obama mean? What are the "normal circumstances" he is referring to? What am I being asked to do? After all, he says everybody should do their part. This is a great example of the same tired rhetoric we get from our political leaders. Rhetoric intended to pacify us and make us think our career politicians are really working on our behalf. But what is really going on?
Let's not forget that Obama has an election to win in 2012. Saying things like "cuts I wouldn't make under normal circumstances" is all about political cover. He wants us to know that he wouldn't change a thing except for the current crisis engulfing the Nation over the debt ceiling limit. Next year he will campaign on the fact that he made the "tough choices" to steer the country out of the crisis. Being the consummate politician he knows he must build expectations now to support his re-election bid next year.
That being said, rest assured that the same calculus is going on with the Republican leadership. Boehner wants to remain Speaker of the House in 2012. He must figure out how to maximize political gain for his party to ensure they remain the majority party in the House to retain their hold on power.
Politicians love a crisis. What we must understand is that the debt ceiling crisis has been foisted upon us by the very political leaders that are attempting to exploit it for their personal benefit.
* Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/59702.html#ixzz1Sxke7mSj
"We need an approach that goes after waste in the budget and gets rid of pet projects that cost billions of dollars,” he said. “We need an approach that makes some serious cuts to worthy programs – cuts I wouldn’t make under normal circumstances. And we need an approach that asks everybody to do their part.”
Now let's enter the POLITIZONE and see what is really going on.
What on earth does Obama mean? What are the "normal circumstances" he is referring to? What am I being asked to do? After all, he says everybody should do their part. This is a great example of the same tired rhetoric we get from our political leaders. Rhetoric intended to pacify us and make us think our career politicians are really working on our behalf. But what is really going on?
Let's not forget that Obama has an election to win in 2012. Saying things like "cuts I wouldn't make under normal circumstances" is all about political cover. He wants us to know that he wouldn't change a thing except for the current crisis engulfing the Nation over the debt ceiling limit. Next year he will campaign on the fact that he made the "tough choices" to steer the country out of the crisis. Being the consummate politician he knows he must build expectations now to support his re-election bid next year.
That being said, rest assured that the same calculus is going on with the Republican leadership. Boehner wants to remain Speaker of the House in 2012. He must figure out how to maximize political gain for his party to ensure they remain the majority party in the House to retain their hold on power.
Politicians love a crisis. What we must understand is that the debt ceiling crisis has been foisted upon us by the very political leaders that are attempting to exploit it for their personal benefit.
* Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/59702.html#ixzz1Sxke7mSj
Monday, July 18, 2011
The Heart of the Problem
Today Yahoo.com carried a report by Andrew Gulley of Agence-France Presse (AFP), an international news agency, entitled, "Senate plan firms to avert US debt default."* What caught my attention about this report is how succinctly Gulley articulated the crux of the problem with the political process, in this country.
Gulley reported, "The budget showdown is enmeshed in America's perpetual election cycle as Republicans seek to block Obama's agenda, painting him as a big-spending liberal who would drive the country to economic ruin if reelected in 2012. But Republicans have to walk a fine line as any obviously cynical politicking seen as detrimental to the fragile US economy or imperiling jobs would also be electoral suicide."
The problem is not the election cycle itself because the process of frequent elections is established in the Constitution. The problem is career politicians have hijacked the election process to perpetuate their long careers in "public service."
The "perpetual" nature of the process means as soon as a politician wins an election he must immediately act and make decisions based on the imperative need to win the next election. After all, he wants to advance his career. Consequently, he must perform the calculus to minimize political risk and maximize political gain. What did Gulley say about Republicans? He said they have to "walk a fine line as any obviously cynical politicking seen as detrimental to the fragile US economy or imperiling jobs would also be electoral suicide."
However, what is missing from this report is the result of our career politicians being "enmeshed in America's perpetual election cycle," a corrupted governing process. Politicians are so focused on winning the next election and completing the political calculus to ensure their electoral success, the Nation suffers. Instead of long-term solutions to the Nation's problems we get short-sighted, politically expedient action and decisions. The country is really no better off, but career politicians are enabled to continue pursuing their own ambitions.
I especially like Gulley's perspective on the issue. He is on the outside looking in. Since he is on the outside he can provide a more objective assessment of our political situation. When a person has a personal stake in an outcome their own self interests tend to guide their actions. It is easy to understand why the interests of career politicians supersede the interests of constituents and the need to find long term solutions to the Nation's problems.
* The report was carried by Yahoo.com. Below is the link from AFP where the story is posted. The story was posted on AFP on 7/18 at 10:38 GMT
http://www.afp.com/afpcom/en/taglibrary/activity/web/multimedia/afp-online-news
Gulley reported, "The budget showdown is enmeshed in America's perpetual election cycle as Republicans seek to block Obama's agenda, painting him as a big-spending liberal who would drive the country to economic ruin if reelected in 2012. But Republicans have to walk a fine line as any obviously cynical politicking seen as detrimental to the fragile US economy or imperiling jobs would also be electoral suicide."
The problem is not the election cycle itself because the process of frequent elections is established in the Constitution. The problem is career politicians have hijacked the election process to perpetuate their long careers in "public service."
The "perpetual" nature of the process means as soon as a politician wins an election he must immediately act and make decisions based on the imperative need to win the next election. After all, he wants to advance his career. Consequently, he must perform the calculus to minimize political risk and maximize political gain. What did Gulley say about Republicans? He said they have to "walk a fine line as any obviously cynical politicking seen as detrimental to the fragile US economy or imperiling jobs would also be electoral suicide."
However, what is missing from this report is the result of our career politicians being "enmeshed in America's perpetual election cycle," a corrupted governing process. Politicians are so focused on winning the next election and completing the political calculus to ensure their electoral success, the Nation suffers. Instead of long-term solutions to the Nation's problems we get short-sighted, politically expedient action and decisions. The country is really no better off, but career politicians are enabled to continue pursuing their own ambitions.
I especially like Gulley's perspective on the issue. He is on the outside looking in. Since he is on the outside he can provide a more objective assessment of our political situation. When a person has a personal stake in an outcome their own self interests tend to guide their actions. It is easy to understand why the interests of career politicians supersede the interests of constituents and the need to find long term solutions to the Nation's problems.
* The report was carried by Yahoo.com. Below is the link from AFP where the story is posted. The story was posted on AFP on 7/18 at 10:38 GMT
http://www.afp.com/afpcom/en/taglibrary/activity/web/multimedia/afp-online-news
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Mere Pawns
Websters defines a pawn as, "a chess piece of the lowest value" or "a person used to advance another's purposes." What do you think is your role in the political chess match for party dominance.
In the political game of chess we are mere pawns. The pawn has the most limited mobility of all the chess pieces. It can only move in two directions, forward and diagonally. We are limited in our mobility by our entrenched two-party system. We realistically only have two choices: you can choose either a Democrat or a Republican. Also, we are used and manipulated to advance the interests of the parties' leadership. Being the majority party means being the party in power. Being in power is the most important thing for the parties' leadership.
Now let's enter the POLITIZONE and see what is really going with the current debt ceiling debate.
Political propaganda has built the debt ceiling issue into a crisis. The messaging from both parties has ensured the issue has become fraught with peril and doom not only for the Nation, but also for the entire world! The sky is falling, the sky is falling! Remember, politicians love a crisis.
It is politically easy and safe to play the blame game. Accuse the other guy of not acting in good faith and you deflect attention away from your own responsibility. In the debt ceiling debate both sides blame each other for the impasse on finding a solution. Neither side is accepting responsibility. Accepting responsibility means assuming greater political risk. It's interesting that each side accuses the other of not acting in the spirit of bipartisanship. Just a note here, bipartisanship is a political scam the parties foist upon us. On important party line votes, like raising the debt ceiling, bipartisanship is really a non-starter. But it serves a political purpose to place the blame.
Politicians love to play on our emotions so they can manipulate us and maintain their power over us. CNN reported that President Obama said Social Security checks might not go out if the debt limit is not raised. What was his intent in making that statement? Scare the old folks! And, of course, he blames the Republican Party leadership for the impasse. What is the emotional response to Obama's claim? It might go something like, "President Obama please don't let those sorry Republicans stop my Social Security check. You can't let them get away with it!" Not surprisingly the Republican leadership blames the President for the impasse on debt limit "negotiations" claiming he was not taking enough of a leadership role. This evokes an emotional response in Republicans. What is their response? It might go something like, "That sorry Obama! We can let him get away with it!"
What is the effect of this dysfunctional governing process? We are made to worry and fuss and fret and squirm and feel uneasy. "What's going to happen!?" "How will I keep a roof over my head and food on my table?"
And how about our career politicians? How about them? Do you think they suffer from the same anxiety and stresses they cause for us? Will their paychecks stop like your Social Security check might stop? The only thing they have to worry about is completing the calculus to ensure they maximize political gain or minimize political risk from the crisis. After all, they have to win their next election. And isn't that what matters most?
So, how do you feel? Do you think our political system empowers you or does it reduce your status to a mere pawn to be manipulated by career politicians so they can fulfill their self-serving interests?
In the political game of chess we are mere pawns. The pawn has the most limited mobility of all the chess pieces. It can only move in two directions, forward and diagonally. We are limited in our mobility by our entrenched two-party system. We realistically only have two choices: you can choose either a Democrat or a Republican. Also, we are used and manipulated to advance the interests of the parties' leadership. Being the majority party means being the party in power. Being in power is the most important thing for the parties' leadership.
Now let's enter the POLITIZONE and see what is really going with the current debt ceiling debate.
Political propaganda has built the debt ceiling issue into a crisis. The messaging from both parties has ensured the issue has become fraught with peril and doom not only for the Nation, but also for the entire world! The sky is falling, the sky is falling! Remember, politicians love a crisis.
It is politically easy and safe to play the blame game. Accuse the other guy of not acting in good faith and you deflect attention away from your own responsibility. In the debt ceiling debate both sides blame each other for the impasse on finding a solution. Neither side is accepting responsibility. Accepting responsibility means assuming greater political risk. It's interesting that each side accuses the other of not acting in the spirit of bipartisanship. Just a note here, bipartisanship is a political scam the parties foist upon us. On important party line votes, like raising the debt ceiling, bipartisanship is really a non-starter. But it serves a political purpose to place the blame.
Politicians love to play on our emotions so they can manipulate us and maintain their power over us. CNN reported that President Obama said Social Security checks might not go out if the debt limit is not raised. What was his intent in making that statement? Scare the old folks! And, of course, he blames the Republican Party leadership for the impasse. What is the emotional response to Obama's claim? It might go something like, "President Obama please don't let those sorry Republicans stop my Social Security check. You can't let them get away with it!" Not surprisingly the Republican leadership blames the President for the impasse on debt limit "negotiations" claiming he was not taking enough of a leadership role. This evokes an emotional response in Republicans. What is their response? It might go something like, "That sorry Obama! We can let him get away with it!"
What is the effect of this dysfunctional governing process? We are made to worry and fuss and fret and squirm and feel uneasy. "What's going to happen!?" "How will I keep a roof over my head and food on my table?"
And how about our career politicians? How about them? Do you think they suffer from the same anxiety and stresses they cause for us? Will their paychecks stop like your Social Security check might stop? The only thing they have to worry about is completing the calculus to ensure they maximize political gain or minimize political risk from the crisis. After all, they have to win their next election. And isn't that what matters most?
So, how do you feel? Do you think our political system empowers you or does it reduce your status to a mere pawn to be manipulated by career politicians so they can fulfill their self-serving interests?
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Leadership
We desperately need leadership and, in spite of their rhetoric to the contrary, our political leaders are actually incapable of providing it. They want the authority associated with leadership but they aren't willing to assume responsibility or accept accountability.
I am currently enrolled in an Organizational Behavior class. The authors of my textbook state that leaders in organizations "usually accept three key functions in their roles:
The real problem is that taking responsibility and being accountable is politically risky. Playing the blame game and accusing the opposition of being the cause of a problem is much safer. After all, the primary goal of career politicians is to keep winning their elections and extending their careers in "public service."
A while back I read a quote in Time magazine by John McCain that went something like, "The problem in Washington is everyone is responsible, so no one is responsible." So, the Democratic leadership blames the Republican leadership and the Republican leadership blames the Democratic leadership. And so it goes, around and around and around. They don't really have to accomplish much of anything on our behalf because they are not responsible for any failings...its the other guy's fault!
The real problem is we don't hold them accountable. They behave the way they do because we continue to let them get away with it.
Political insanity!
* Hellriegel, Don and John W. Slocum Jr. Organizational Behavior. 13th Edition. CENGAGE Learning. Madison, Ohio
I am currently enrolled in an Organizational Behavior class. The authors of my textbook state that leaders in organizations "usually accept three key functions in their roles:
- Authority: the right to make decisions,
- Responsibility: assignment for achieving a goal, and
- Accountability: acceptance of success or failure." *
The real problem is that taking responsibility and being accountable is politically risky. Playing the blame game and accusing the opposition of being the cause of a problem is much safer. After all, the primary goal of career politicians is to keep winning their elections and extending their careers in "public service."
A while back I read a quote in Time magazine by John McCain that went something like, "The problem in Washington is everyone is responsible, so no one is responsible." So, the Democratic leadership blames the Republican leadership and the Republican leadership blames the Democratic leadership. And so it goes, around and around and around. They don't really have to accomplish much of anything on our behalf because they are not responsible for any failings...its the other guy's fault!
The real problem is we don't hold them accountable. They behave the way they do because we continue to let them get away with it.
Political insanity!
* Hellriegel, Don and John W. Slocum Jr. Organizational Behavior. 13th Edition. CENGAGE Learning. Madison, Ohio
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Are You Angry?
I enjoy reading articles on the political web site POLITICO.com. I especially enjoy reading some of the comments readers post. Some of them are insightful, but most only reflect, and serve to perpetuate, the divisiveness that the Democratic Party leadership and Republican Party leadership foist upon us. Through their messaging the parties' leadership actively promote the deluding liberal vs. conservative argument which keeps us divided
Those leaders understand the power of emotion. They know that by playing on our emotions we can be manipulated. Anger is an especially powerful emotion. When we are angry we are less likely to think rationally or objectively: our natural tendency is to retaliate.
Why is it important for the parties' leadership to keep us divided and angry? Every two years the potential exists for the balance of power to shift in Congress from one party to the other. In 2010 the Republicans wrestled control of the House from the Democrats. The leadership of the Republican party assumed the positions of power. The Democratic leadership was relegated to an inferior position. The Republican leadership had been subject to the will of the Democratic leadership during their reign, but now it was their turn. They have the power! They can impose their will on the Democrats!
In 2012 the leadership of the Republican Party wants nothing more than to maintain their hold on power. The leadership of the Democratic Party wants nothing more than for their party to attain the majority so they can be in power again.
Keeping us divided and angry facilitates the leaderships' efforts to attain or maintain the majority so they can maintain their hold on power or to seize power. Their messaging keeps us angry so we won't think rationally and recognize we are being manipulated. Their intent is to keep us focused on retaliation: "We can't let them get away with it anymore!"
Those leaders understand the power of emotion. They know that by playing on our emotions we can be manipulated. Anger is an especially powerful emotion. When we are angry we are less likely to think rationally or objectively: our natural tendency is to retaliate.
Why is it important for the parties' leadership to keep us divided and angry? Every two years the potential exists for the balance of power to shift in Congress from one party to the other. In 2010 the Republicans wrestled control of the House from the Democrats. The leadership of the Republican party assumed the positions of power. The Democratic leadership was relegated to an inferior position. The Republican leadership had been subject to the will of the Democratic leadership during their reign, but now it was their turn. They have the power! They can impose their will on the Democrats!
In 2012 the leadership of the Republican Party wants nothing more than to maintain their hold on power. The leadership of the Democratic Party wants nothing more than for their party to attain the majority so they can be in power again.
Keeping us divided and angry facilitates the leaderships' efforts to attain or maintain the majority so they can maintain their hold on power or to seize power. Their messaging keeps us angry so we won't think rationally and recognize we are being manipulated. Their intent is to keep us focused on retaliation: "We can't let them get away with it anymore!"
Monday, June 20, 2011
Political Careerism and the Corruption of the Governing Process in the United States
Webster’s Dictionary provides several definitions for the word politics. One states that politics is, “The methods or tactics involved in managing a government or state.” In our Republic (we are not a democracy) we “hire” through the elective process individuals in whom we invest the power and entrust to manage the affairs of our Nation. The Constitution established and legally empowers two groups of those representatives to formulate and enact the laws by which we are governed. The two groups are the 100 Senators and the 435 members of the House of Representatives that serve in the Congress of the United States of America.
When we elect our representatives and send them to Washington we expect them to work collectively to provide long-term solutions for our Nation’s problems. We expect them to balance the demands of competing interests and then to reach a consensus on the best courses of action to solve problems. We expect that the politics they engage in, the methods used to reach their collective decisions, will reflect honest debate and principled deliberation. Certainly not everyone will agree with the outcomes, but if the politics are honest then we have a duty to support those outcomes.
That is what we expect. But, what do we get? Instead of counsels that engage in honest debate and principled deliberation we get counsels whose members make shortsighted decisions based on the imperative need to win the next election. The debate in those counsels fall into the chasm of the partisan divide.
The process of governing in the United States has been corrupted by the allure of politics as a career. For candidates and their political parties the need to win the next election dominates every aspect of politics. Self-serving interests and self-aggrandizement have supplanted the interests of constituents and the Nation and is what passes for “public service”.
For members of Congress the legislative challenge should be to pursue long-term solutions to our Nation’s problems. However, in the pursuit of long Congressional careers their focus becomes much more limited in scope and more self-serving in nature. Their real challenge becomes making decisions that maximize their chances of being re-elected. Savvy career politicians are very successful at computing the political calculus which results in their being elected time and time again. Being elected time and time again allows them to ascend the seniority ladder and to attain the ultimate prize, leadership positions within the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. As leaders of their party they have the power to control the members of their party and perhaps more importantly, the party’s message.
Once members have ascended to the positions of leadership within their respective parties their attention shifts to the partisan political battles to be the majority party. They must still win their individual elections, but being incumbents in positions of power makes their seats relatively “safe”. The ultimate prize for the parties’ leadership is to be the leadership of the majority party.
And why is it so important to be the leadership of the majority party? Power! Congress operates as a pure democracy in which the majority party is in control and has the power. The leadership of the majority party controls the legislative agenda. Also, their party holds the powerful committee chairmanships which control the execution of that agenda. From their position of power the majority party imposes its will on the minority party and the Nation. Legislative proposals reflect the narrow ideological perspective of the majority party leadership.
The minority party leadership and the members of the minority party are relegated to an inferior position and can only respond to the dictates of the majority party and the majority party’s legislative proposals. As a result, debate on a proposal devolves into a single argument along the partisan divide. For the majority party leadership legislative success equates to political advantage which supports their strategies to maintain the majority and retain their hold on the seats of power.
The minority party leadership controls their party’s response to the majority party’s agenda. For them the political calculus revolves around their party’s opposition to the majority’s actions. Politically they cannot allow the majority party to succeed and must oppose their agenda. Their goal is to garner as much political advantage as they can for their party with the ultimate goal of becoming the majority party. The leadership of the minority party always wants to be the majority party leadership – they want the power! They want to be in control so they can then impose their will on the other party and the Nation.
How does political careerism corrupt the process of governing in this country? Instead of good policies and laws we get knee jerk reactions to the crisis du jour and short-sighted policy decisions that are intended to pacify voters. Long-term solutions are sacrificed on the altar of doing what is politically expedient to win the next election. To enjoy long careers members must make decisions based on the short-term goal of winning the next election. After all, that is what best serves their interests. Also, long-term solutions fall victim to doing what is politically expedient to win the majority. To attain or maintain the majority, party leaders must engage in partisan politics and partisan messaging to maximize the short-term political gain for its members in order to help those members win their elections. After all, that is what best serves their interests.
Every aspect of our political culture facilitates this corruption. The very mechanisms of Congress directly support it. The Constitution empowers the Senate and House to establish the rules that govern their respective operations. Both chambers have established rules that favor the majority party and that increase the self-aggrandizing allure of political careerism. The seniority system allows for the ascension to leadership positions based on continued re-election. The spoils system allows party leadership to reward those members who have demonstrated loyalty to the party. Committee organization ensures that the majority party is in control and has the power.
Other factors include the power of incumbency, the quashing of any challenge to the Democrat vs. Republican monopoly on the entire political process, the media and voting patterns. Perhaps the most important factor in this category is money – money for campaigns.
To restore integrity to the governing process We the People of the United States must resume our rightful place as the ultimate guardians of that process. We must no longer allow the short-sighted and self-serving interests of politicians to further erode the long-term health and strength of our Nation. We must find and elect candidates whose definition of “public service” really is about, and genuinely involves serving the public. Candidates whose interests to serve their constituents and the Nation supersedes the desire for self-aggrandizement and power. Candidates that recognize the corrupting influences of our political system and how our political culture facilities that corruption.
We must find and elect candidates that will serve in accordance with the Founding principle of the citizen legislator – one who serves for limited periods of time and then returns to private life to be subject to the laws they helped pass. The Constitution does not contain term limit provisions for Congress, Congress has been unsuccessful in imposing term limits on itself and the Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot legally impose term limits on federal legislators. Therefore, it becomes our responsibility to counter the corrupting influences of political careerism and corruption of the governing process in the United States.
In the “Declaration of Independence”, Thomas Jefferson stated the Nation was going to provide “new Guards for their (its) future Security.” It is time for a new revolution in which we find New Guards, citizen legislators, to provide for our future security. As we find and elect ever increasing numbers of New Guards our future will indeed be more secure. Overtime, the allure of political careerism and its corrupting influences would fade and the process of governing would no longer fall victim to the all encompassing necessity of winning that next election.
When we elect our representatives and send them to Washington we expect them to work collectively to provide long-term solutions for our Nation’s problems. We expect them to balance the demands of competing interests and then to reach a consensus on the best courses of action to solve problems. We expect that the politics they engage in, the methods used to reach their collective decisions, will reflect honest debate and principled deliberation. Certainly not everyone will agree with the outcomes, but if the politics are honest then we have a duty to support those outcomes.
That is what we expect. But, what do we get? Instead of counsels that engage in honest debate and principled deliberation we get counsels whose members make shortsighted decisions based on the imperative need to win the next election. The debate in those counsels fall into the chasm of the partisan divide.
The process of governing in the United States has been corrupted by the allure of politics as a career. For candidates and their political parties the need to win the next election dominates every aspect of politics. Self-serving interests and self-aggrandizement have supplanted the interests of constituents and the Nation and is what passes for “public service”.
For members of Congress the legislative challenge should be to pursue long-term solutions to our Nation’s problems. However, in the pursuit of long Congressional careers their focus becomes much more limited in scope and more self-serving in nature. Their real challenge becomes making decisions that maximize their chances of being re-elected. Savvy career politicians are very successful at computing the political calculus which results in their being elected time and time again. Being elected time and time again allows them to ascend the seniority ladder and to attain the ultimate prize, leadership positions within the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. As leaders of their party they have the power to control the members of their party and perhaps more importantly, the party’s message.
Once members have ascended to the positions of leadership within their respective parties their attention shifts to the partisan political battles to be the majority party. They must still win their individual elections, but being incumbents in positions of power makes their seats relatively “safe”. The ultimate prize for the parties’ leadership is to be the leadership of the majority party.
And why is it so important to be the leadership of the majority party? Power! Congress operates as a pure democracy in which the majority party is in control and has the power. The leadership of the majority party controls the legislative agenda. Also, their party holds the powerful committee chairmanships which control the execution of that agenda. From their position of power the majority party imposes its will on the minority party and the Nation. Legislative proposals reflect the narrow ideological perspective of the majority party leadership.
The minority party leadership and the members of the minority party are relegated to an inferior position and can only respond to the dictates of the majority party and the majority party’s legislative proposals. As a result, debate on a proposal devolves into a single argument along the partisan divide. For the majority party leadership legislative success equates to political advantage which supports their strategies to maintain the majority and retain their hold on the seats of power.
The minority party leadership controls their party’s response to the majority party’s agenda. For them the political calculus revolves around their party’s opposition to the majority’s actions. Politically they cannot allow the majority party to succeed and must oppose their agenda. Their goal is to garner as much political advantage as they can for their party with the ultimate goal of becoming the majority party. The leadership of the minority party always wants to be the majority party leadership – they want the power! They want to be in control so they can then impose their will on the other party and the Nation.
How does political careerism corrupt the process of governing in this country? Instead of good policies and laws we get knee jerk reactions to the crisis du jour and short-sighted policy decisions that are intended to pacify voters. Long-term solutions are sacrificed on the altar of doing what is politically expedient to win the next election. To enjoy long careers members must make decisions based on the short-term goal of winning the next election. After all, that is what best serves their interests. Also, long-term solutions fall victim to doing what is politically expedient to win the majority. To attain or maintain the majority, party leaders must engage in partisan politics and partisan messaging to maximize the short-term political gain for its members in order to help those members win their elections. After all, that is what best serves their interests.
Every aspect of our political culture facilitates this corruption. The very mechanisms of Congress directly support it. The Constitution empowers the Senate and House to establish the rules that govern their respective operations. Both chambers have established rules that favor the majority party and that increase the self-aggrandizing allure of political careerism. The seniority system allows for the ascension to leadership positions based on continued re-election. The spoils system allows party leadership to reward those members who have demonstrated loyalty to the party. Committee organization ensures that the majority party is in control and has the power.
Other factors include the power of incumbency, the quashing of any challenge to the Democrat vs. Republican monopoly on the entire political process, the media and voting patterns. Perhaps the most important factor in this category is money – money for campaigns.
To restore integrity to the governing process We the People of the United States must resume our rightful place as the ultimate guardians of that process. We must no longer allow the short-sighted and self-serving interests of politicians to further erode the long-term health and strength of our Nation. We must find and elect candidates whose definition of “public service” really is about, and genuinely involves serving the public. Candidates whose interests to serve their constituents and the Nation supersedes the desire for self-aggrandizement and power. Candidates that recognize the corrupting influences of our political system and how our political culture facilities that corruption.
We must find and elect candidates that will serve in accordance with the Founding principle of the citizen legislator – one who serves for limited periods of time and then returns to private life to be subject to the laws they helped pass. The Constitution does not contain term limit provisions for Congress, Congress has been unsuccessful in imposing term limits on itself and the Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot legally impose term limits on federal legislators. Therefore, it becomes our responsibility to counter the corrupting influences of political careerism and corruption of the governing process in the United States.
In the “Declaration of Independence”, Thomas Jefferson stated the Nation was going to provide “new Guards for their (its) future Security.” It is time for a new revolution in which we find New Guards, citizen legislators, to provide for our future security. As we find and elect ever increasing numbers of New Guards our future will indeed be more secure. Overtime, the allure of political careerism and its corrupting influences would fade and the process of governing would no longer fall victim to the all encompassing necessity of winning that next election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)