A recent Gallup poll states that voters are “fed-up” with Congress, with all the bickering and apparent inability to find some common cause to lift the country out of its economic doldrums. Well guess what, “voters,” you have gotten exactly what you voted for: Right-wing extremists who call themselves the “Tea Party,” and whose idea of governance is to do as little as possible except slash and burn so that they can do even less to collect a taxpayer-supplied paycheck. As some of us may recall, the Democrats tried to do something to address the systemic corruption of “free market” politics and forced to pump-start an economy with--thanks to the Bush administration's tax-cutting, spendthrifting ways--an already difficult debt liability. And what did it get them? Deceitful propaganda attacks from the media that deliberately pumped-up the Tea Party “movement” without pointing out its policy, credibility and legitimacy flaws—creating the subsequent voter “disillusionment.”
The reality is that voters should be disillusioned with themselves, for not being able to perceive that the blunders of policies of the past decade are too great to be fixed in a mere two years. But as I pointed out in my “riot” post, the problem is that there are too many people casting their votes for candidates who promise to oppose policies that they perceive help the people they dislike (i.e. minorities), and by default end-up helping no one, except maybe the rich and very well-off—and perhaps in the end, not even them, because of the failure of the educational and infrastructure supports that keep them wealthy. Thus we should place equal blame on the voters who send such politicians to office as the politicians themselves.
Not all politicians are created equal, obviously: some take the task of governing seriously, as others do not. According to a the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the definition of “politician” is as follows:
1 : a person experienced in the art or science of government; esp: one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government
2 : a person engaged in party politics as a profession b; a person primarily interested in political office for selfish or other narrow usually short-sighted reasons
Let’s be frank: Definition number one tends to describe Democrats. One of Barack Obama’s “weaknesses” is that he doesn’t like conflict, and did we not see how he tried in vain to engage the other side, who rather than work with him, incomprehensibly clung to the failed policies that brought us to this precarious economic point? Definition number two, of course, tends to describe Republicans and their Tea Party cohorts. During the 2009-2010 legislative term, Democratic lawmakers fought their Republican and intraparty foes in an effort to undo a decade worth of corrupt financial practices brought on by deregulation and backroom deals (like VP Dick Cheney’s “energy taskforce” that remains a “state secret”), and to finally address the dangerous inequities of the nation’s health care system; that both policies were imperfect is less the fault of those who formulated them, but of those who sought to dilute them for partisan—and ultimately for the country—self-defeating reasons. In the 2011 elections, voters could have sent a message to Republicans and their Tea Party fringe element that we do want “change” and we don’t want your blatant obstructionism that only benefitted of the wealthiest Americans; instead, many voters just saw slow-moving and unnecessary tit-for-tat, and they wanted to “change” that. With the help of often one-sided media reporting that favored empty bombast over substance, voters did not see that for Democratic lawmakers, it was like arguing with children, or with “discussing” whether to plug a hole in a sinking ship; Republicans preferred to let the ship sink just so they could blame the captain. Given all the misinformation from the right which the media eagerly disseminated for ratings, many people simply decided to vote for the “other guy” who promised to “fix” Washington by voting against health care reform and regulation, and cutting spending in a down economy; they offered nothing else, except those tiresome refrains about taxes. I repeat: Who is to blame? Voters knew who these Tea Party candidates were and what they “stood” for, and they still voted them in.
Thus voters are equally responsible for the governmental do-nothingism we have seen in the 2011-2012 legislative season. All we have seen from the Tea Party-controlled House is votes against health care reform, Medicare and threats to Social Security and the Education department. This is governing? Only if you believe that less is more, and you have contempt for what the Constitution really stand for.
Oh, but isn’t adherence to the Constitution what the Tea Party people say they stand for? Isn’t it a non-existent federal government that is described in the preamble?:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Some people might have the temerity to claim that this passage means exactly what it says. It means exactly what it says. There is nothing here that implies a “right” to secede from the Union; there is nothing here about “states’ rights”). The Constitution was meant to be the foundation of a “more perfect Union” rather than the jumble of quasi-independent states under the Articles of Confederation run by their own tin-pot dictators; this was the recipe for chaos and national suicide. Insuring tranquility, promoting the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty are concepts that require active participation, not passive observation. Human nature is such that the individual seldom has the time or inclination to care about the needs and rights of those beyond his or her immediate sphere, and it is the duty of government to insure that everyone has those rights unimpinged by the avarice of state laws, local customs and individual prejudice.
While many Republicans in Congress seem to think that their function is merely to serve corporations, the institution is in fact given specific duties and responsibilities in the Constitution; after all, the United States of America refers to a country in fact, not theory. The founding fathers were cognizant of the reality that without real authority over the states, the concept of nation was a sham. About half the article detailing Congress’ responsibilities have to do with the nation’s defense, and the rest as follows:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof;
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
There you go. The “promoting the general welfare” clause doesn’t mean the welfare of corporations or the rich—it means everyone. It is Congress’ responsibility to pass laws that maintain some semblance of balance and prevent corrupt practices that endanger the welfare of the generality. It is not specific, but is certainly meant to cover all such eventualities as well promoting education and the infrastructure of a civilized, modern society; we have seen too often in the past where certain states have not taken their own responsibilities in this regard with any seriousness. The so-called “Commerce Clause” states directly that it is Congress’ responsibility to regulate commerce within the country and without; this is not subject to debate, but many in Congress seem to want to ignore their responsibilities. Why are we paying them if they don’t want to work?
“States’ Rights” in the Constitution is rather vague; in fact it spends more time enumerating what rights states do not have. Only the Tenth Amendment bothers to touch on the subject: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The question, it seems, is not one of “interpretation” but to what extent a legislator has allegiance to a nation or a state. U.S. Senators and Representatives are, after all, elected to represent the views of their constituents as they apply to issues of national import, not state issues—that is what state government is for. If constituencies have differing views, then legislators are bound by the Constitution to make all needful laws that advance the cause of the nation as a whole, and if that requires compromise, that is their duty.
Anti-government politicians, like Texas governor Rick Perry, continuously quote from the notes of the founding fathers whose views were either in the minority or rejected outright by the Constitutional Convention. And for good reason: Certain regions of the country (the South, for example) have consistently pushed their own sacred sovereignty against national interference (but they do like to go to war against dark-skinned people). The so-called “states’ rights” being defended always seem to have something to do with such things as the practice of racial discrimination, opposition to labor rights and having the “right” to do as little as possible to promote the general welfare via education and health care. Even states without income taxes do great harm to the “general” welfare with regressive revenue streams that cause great suffering on the most vulnerable. Southern states and their representatives in Congress also demonstrate that they do not have the interests of the nation as a whole in mind when they actively rob other states of industry with the promise of virtual slave labor without rights or benefits, which they call “right to work.” Frankly, for a region that as a whole occupies the bottom-third in every quality of life index (including Texas and Florida), why should the rest of the country be forced to follow that track? Only the federal government has the power to stop them, but as we have seen, right-wing politicians from those states (and some areas of the West) have done everything in their power to dilute that power, all the while falsely using the Constitution as their “guide.”
No comments:
Post a Comment