12-13-2010 PP#1: Why American Politics Doesn’t Work

With the ever-deteriorating state of American education, it is not surprising that most American adults don’t have any real idea why American politics doesn’t work, because most Americans don’t know that American politics has been broken since the beginning of America and even before that. They are under the illusion that, at least in years gone by, the American political system actually worked, produced good results, and was handled by more capable, knowledgeable, and authentic individuals. Therefore, there is confusion as to why the seemingly broken system which they are witnessing currently is so ineffective and the current politicians so inept, but that is not the Truth. Today, i will clear it up for You….

Live Man Walking PP (Philosophy / Politics) Posts are about understanding the Truth behind the actions, and the current debate over the tax compromise bill being debated this week is a great example. You’ll hear all week various views espousing everything from cynics just wanting something accomplished to ideologues on various sides itching to fight for the purity of their cherished beliefs to realists concerned that the current trajectory of Congressional/Presidential spending is (not will) bankrupting us to political analysts pointing out the fine points of who’s setting up who for what (even if they aren’t aware that such is what they are doing). Please don’t get as caught up in any of those positions as much as assuming a posture of understanding what is really happening at a belief level that is driving each of those perspectives.

Whatever Your belief about tax policy and the intricacies of regressive rates, stimulative initiatives, or moral obligations, there is one overriding problem that America has that will constantly recur in our PP posts: the American political system is inherently self-promoting. Now, notice i did not describe it as “selfish,” because the system is an “it” and not a person – therefore, it cannot be selfish, per se. Also, i am not insinuating that Americans themselves are a selfish people; such an assertion is simply not borne out by statistical, anecdotal, or historical data. What i am asserting is the Truth that the American political system is not designed to help people – it is designed to facilitate the governing of people.

Many people today think that the purpose of government is to help people. Others argue that government should referee people but otherwise stay out of their affairs. This is the foundational contrast between big-government and small-government advocates. But either one of these views misses the distilled point: government exist to provide order. Order indicates the presence of government, but what kind of order exists is a reflection of the character of the rulers. The problem today with regard to the confusion people are experiencing when they listen to opposing party members argue the ideological passions of their sides or watch the analytical pundits massage the fine points of political maneuvering is that ideas and strategy don’t matter nearly as much as character, because both are derived from character.

This fact means that government will be imperfect, because people are imperfect. As important as government is, it is not the end-all, be-all in Life – uh, that would be called “Love.” For example, there was no shortage of order in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was in power, but no one in a healthy state of mind would argue that Saddam Hussein was a good ruler. His character wasn’t flawed, it was evil in its nature. To a far lesser degree (but, make no mistake, it is still the same), many rulers around the world and in America are also not good rulers. The difference is whether they are evil or just inept.

So, what makes a ruler “evil”? What makes a ruler “good” (if there is such a thing)? The answer is: character.

Here is the point worth remembering: character in a politician should not be judged along the spectrum that extends from benevolence to malevolence, it should be discerned according to the politician’s posture toward those over whom he/she has charge. Terrorists can build schools, roads, & hospitals – they are not completely malevolent or absent of any benevolent proclivities. In fact, terrorists (by their very nature as people predisposed to fight) will be very benevolent to someone. Great presidents (as they are remembered) can wage unnecessary wars and kill innocent people, develop opinions of themselves that are disproportional to reality, or detach themselves in their own luxury. No, the test for evaluating a ruler or politician should be this: Are their actions driven by a character that is primarily concerned about the welfare of those over whom they rule.

Back to the current debate on the bill that freezes taxes, extends unemployment aid, allows estates to be inherited, and runs up the deficit by $900 Billion. The Repugnicans got what they wanted, and the Demoncrats got what they wanted. The President got what he wanted. Now, granted, they all had to “compromise,” (which normally means they didn’t get everything they wanted, but – in this case – it means that they gave the other side everything they wanted), but all sides should be happy with the resolution of this issue. And yet very few thinking and serious people are happy on any side about it. Why?

The underlying reason why no one is happy is that it wasn’t a good deal for anyone. Everyone got what they wanted, but it wasn’t a good deal for anyone. In our hearts, all of us know that this bill is similar to having plopped down on the couch to watch Your BeLoved Cowboys play on Thanksgiving after having just eaten way too much food followed by a piece of homemade fudge, a piece of pecan pie, and some of that crunchy, cherry stuff when Your taste buds call from the bullpen….

“Uh, hello. This is the bullpen, sir. Listen, we know that You just ate too much and our body is going to revolt soon. And we understand that – after that binge – You irresponsibly took in enough calories via several desserts to kill some forms of Life on this planet. However, we respectfully submit to You that it wouldn’t be Thanksgiving if You don’t get off Your ass and get us a piece of banana bread. And, by the way, just as a point of order, we would like it noted for the record that banana bread is good for You – or at least not as bad as those other desserts that You consumed. We’ll be awaiting its arrival.” Click…

Now, who among us doesn’t like our Thanksgiving traditions? All the bullpen’s arguments about the virtues of banana bread, the “You’ve-already-gone-too-far-so-You-might-as-well-go-ahead” view, the justification that You’re not nearly as fat as Uncle Henry and ought to somehow be proud of Yourself for only being 100 pounds overweight instead of 200 pounds like him, and the other arguments are ridiculous. The fact is that You are killing Yourself by eating in such an irresponsible manner, and tradition doesn’t lessen the stupidity of that behavior.

At that moment, when the bullpen calls You up, You have to say “no.” And that’s what this tax deal is all about. The Repugnicans are supposed to be the grown-ups who will say, “Well, i’d Love to extend unemployment benefits or cut taxes, but we don’t have the money, honey.” The Demoncrats are supposed to be the ones who look out for people’s best interests. Instead, the Repugnicans just added $900 Billion to the country’s already maxed out credit card, and the Demoncrats are demanding that class warfare (read, “blamegame”) should have been waged to stop this shenanigan. It’s repulsive, but it’s worse than that – it’s evil.

It’s evil – yes, in a lesser way, but nonetheless still evil – in the sense that it doesn’t take into account what will most benefit the people under their collective rule. Is it any more morally right to give people money through Christmas that they don’t have than at any other time of the year? Or should someone with a brain cell that still works stand up and tell people that there is no more fried chicken and they’ll have to settle for saltines if they’re still hungry, ‘cause momma’s tired and all the chickens outside are gone. When did it become OK to go steal the next generation's chickens from next door?

Or is it somehow not as bad if we extend tax cuts for everyone than if we only extend them for people who can barely make ends meet? O, wait, i know – let’s just quit having taxes and keep running up our credit card. i mean, as long as we’ve got a nuke, do we really have to pay our bills anyway? What is China gonna do about it – they’re not going to take over and, ultimately, they want the interest paid anyway…

See how stupid all that sounds? This debate was a chance for serious people on both sides to actually get serious, but the problem is not how serious they are – the problem is how little character they have. And what is in their character is to rule on behalf of those who keep them in power and for their own selves instead of ruling for the benefit of those under their rule.

This is why the American political system is broken, why Americans are instinctively upset about “Washington being broken,” and why so many young people (and increasing numbers of older people, too) are becoming cynical, disengaged, or just simply jaded about the potential of any effective results being produced. To rule doesn’t mean to just establish or keep order…it doesn’t mean to just be sober-minded in acknowledging the problems or recognizing the dangers…it doesn’t mean simply stopping bad policies or obstructing ideologues hell-bent on wholesale change. No, ruling means implementing or not implementing, but – either way – doing so for the benefit of those under Your rule. Saddam got it wrong. There is a difference between our rulers and Saddam Hussein – he was evil, ours are incompetent. However, the difference is not much comfort when the grown up is sitting on the couch eating banana bread….