My congressman sent out an e-mail in which he was inexplicably whining about some backlash he’s gotten from his constituents over some recent political decisions. He appeared genuinely perplexed at why we would be upset, and went on to wonder if compromise and “getting along” would ever be possible in Washington. I wrote him what I think (and hope) was a thoughtful letter, trying to explain at least my frustrations with his positions.
I also made a genuine offer to meet with him to help him understand the thinking outside the Beltway, so I don’t want to mention him by name in a public forum. I would love to get a fair hearing from him, and I don’t want to give him a reason, by my own foolishness, to decline my offer. Before you dismiss this as a fool’s errand, I will say that as cynical as I am about politicians (as you’ll see below), I think there might actually be an outside chance that he might be willing to listen. He ran as a conservative small business owner from my area, and he has been an otherwise fairly reliable congressman. So I will give him the benefit of the doubt. For now.
But he has really blown it in my opinion – and, apparently, in the opinion of many – because of some recent overtures to the Left on the budget, gun control, declining to hold government officials accountable, and spending… not to mention a significant campaign donation to the current President. Seriously.
Anyway, just for grins and giggles, I thought I’d share with you some of the broader philosophical issues that I explained to him, which apply to all of our “public servants”.
CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY – LIBERTY
When politicians take office, they raise their right hands and take the following oath:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
They do not swear to get along with, or find common ground with, anyone else – of any party. They do not swear to enact “common-sense” laws. They don’t even swear to represent the people of their districts. They actually only swear to “represent” the Constitution of the United States.
In short, they have one duty: to defend the Constitution, and in so doing, defend liberty.
This is why Ron Paul (think what you want of him) never had to explain away a vote, or say he didn’t want to “dwell on how we got here” (Washington speak for “don’t blame me”), or lose track of excuses for various contradictory positions. He could simply say, “The Constitution does not authorize Congress to [fill in the blank].” This makes decision making very easy.
When legislators consider a piece of legislation, they should ask themselves two questions: (1) Does the Constitution authorize Congress to do this? (2) Does this bill expand liberty? If the answer to the first is “no”, then there is no need to go further; they cannot support the legislation. If the answer is “yes”, then they consider the second question. If that answer is “no”, then again they cannot support it. That’s it! Done. Let’s go get a beer.
POWER – LIBERTY’S ENEMY
At its root, the problem of mankind is his desire for one thing: Power. J.R.R. Tolkein wrote in The Lord of the Rings, “Men…above all else, desire power.” Government is power, and it attracts people who hunger for it. A recent article in a well-known publication said my congressman’s trouble with his constituents is “sadly emblematic of what ails Washington today: hyper-partisanship in politics and new media; powerful and unaccountable interest groups; vast amounts of undocumented money; and a Congress corrupted by the system.” (Emphasis mine.)
However, the author of that article fails to understand that each of these problems is a result of power itself.
If the government did not wield such power in every aspect of our lives, it would not occupy so much of our thoughts, discussions, arguments, bitterness and anger; thus, there would be no hyper-partisanship in politics. We wouldn’t have to get angry about what the other guy’s partisan politician is doing to us.
If the government did not wield such power, there would be no need for any special interest groups. Do lobbyists ever knock on your door offering luxurious golf outings, cruises or other forms of graft, so you can grant them special favors? Why not? Because you have no power that is useful to them.
If the government did not wield such power, there would be no money chasing it.
And if the government did not wield such power, there would be no corruption. Actually, the article stated it backwards: Congress is not corrupted by the system, as though it is some poor victim; it created and preserves the system.
We need to continue to educate our fellow citizens to the truth and danger of political power. Thomas Jefferson understood its dangers when he said: “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” So did James Madison: “Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression.”
More recently, libertarian economist Doug Casey, founder and chairman of Casey Research, said this: “It’s been said that power corrupts, and that’s true. But it’s more to the point to say that the corrupt seek power. A good case can be made that anyone who wants to be in a position of power should be precluded from it simply because he wants it.”
I hope and pray that my congressman gets it before he becomes even more a part of the problem.
{This post is courtesy of my friend – SweenDog, who makes some very valid points. Hopefully, we’ll be seeing more posts by him, or her.}
Leave a Reply