With that, I flipped the dial and turned off the radio. That pretty much sums up all the problems right there.
Now I'll be optimistic and say I don't think this US Congressman is under some delusion that it is the job of the legislative branch to run the country (efficiently or otherwise). I'm pretty sure he knows what separation of powers means (although there's this nagging suspicion in the back of my mind that it's just as likely 90% of our elected officials have no idea about anything beyond what their aides give them in a thin manila folder every morning).
What I'll argue instead is that Congress (and by this I mean any Congressperson of any party, not just the particular nincompoops on the hot seat at the moment) banks on two things: 1) most Americans have no understanding at all of Civics and are blissfully ignorant of what their elected officials are supposed to be doing; and 2) that they'll be able to get away with whatever they do get away with simply because anyone charged with holding them accountable is functioning in the same opportunistic manner.
If you recall third grade, or maybe the 8th grade refresher course, the US government has three branches: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. The Legislative Branch (Congress) is charged with making laws. The Executive Branch is charged with carrying out (executing) those laws, essentially running the government. As bloated as it has become, the entirety of our Government bureaucracy falls under the Executive Branch; the government may make reports to Congress, but it reports to the President.
Congress has already way overstepped the bounds of its authority - passing bills with volumes of notes and directions to essentially tie the hands of the Executive Branch, giving no leeway for practicality or creativity in carrying out the laws. Instead of providing wide boundaries and goals for the functioning of the nation, Congress essentially makes our civil service corps robotic drones, carrying out orders with such specificity I wouldn't be surprised if the font choices on government forms are codified in law.
This is also why the President tends to meddle in the legislative process so much. There's really nothing else for him (and it seems like they've all be "hims" so far - although I have my doubts about a few: I'm looking at you, "James" K Polk!) to do once the laws get passed besides sign them and avoid lusty interns late at night.
This terrible conflation of the intended order came about, inevitably, because people with power want more of it and everyone, it seems, willing to go through the public flogging of an election campaign, wants to be in charge of the world, not just one half of one third of 1/435th of it.
No one trust each other. That's really the crux of most problems in the world. And it feels like the end of the world if someone breaks our trust - so we withhold. (Maybe we need a National Psychologist to manage our collective phobias and foibles?)
On top of this, we have a Judicial system that is decidedly passive. I know that will come as a shock to all those reliably railing against "activist" judges, but our judicial system won't even comment on anything without a suit being brought. They keep quiet unless asked to speak - and even then, they're pretty, well... judicious. In some systems, if the Judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, sees something fishy happening, they'll just speak up and stop it. Here, ours only steps in if someone asks. I'm not even going to comment on which one is better, simply that our system is less than convenient - the one group that could play referee won't (partly because both warring sides are too scared to lose to even ask).
So we find ourselves with a dysfunctional system, lacking accountability of any kind, overrun by moneyed** interests and power-hungry egotists. I'm not sure why anyone is surprised by the follies that come out of DC or why anyone feels the need to defend any of them.
Just remember, the system we have is the best in the world - in the history of the world - it might not be perfect, but it's better than any alternative. In fact, don't even bother researching or experimenting with any alternatives, just take our word for it, this system rocks. Even with all its faults and failures, it's the best we're ever going to get, the pinnacle of human achievement. Seriously. I promise.
*I included the final clause "more efficiently" to accurately quote the man, obviously the focus and heft of the statement is on "running the government."
**Did you know that's how you spelled "moneyed?" Me neither. At least we all learned something from this post today.
Despite its complexity, a complexity that requires years of study to begin to understand, a complexity that has inspired months and weeks of intense debate, the US Constitution has some very simple functions. I have great respect for it in that way. Government, a complex institution, is boiled down some bare principles. The best is that it set itself up in such a way that the answer to any complex Constitutional question is simply the opinion of the majority of the Justices of the Supreme Court.
They rule; it stands. The same people so vindicated by Citizens United last year are up in arms over the recent ruling on the Affordable Care Act. Sometimes you hate the decision and sometimes you love it, but there's no recourse of disagreeing; the decision becomes definitive. I love that kind of forethought.
The other simple solution I love about the US Constitution is its basis on principle. Written and framed by a bunch of wealthy landowners, the principles of hard work, self-reliance, and individual liberty are squarely ingrained therein. These were guys who could take care of themselves and didn't want anybody telling them what to do. That's why they excluded most US residents from the voting process and completely distrusted the common man. We're a Republic, not a Democracy because the US Constitution was designed to benefit capable people over the less capable.
That's music to the ears of some today, who maintain such a legacy and insist the Constitution should continue to work under those principles. For others, it sounds terse and unfeeling, almost tyrannical in it's ironic attempt to escape tyranny. Here again, there is much room for debate, but the genius of the US Constitution is that the intent or principles of the founders don't matter to the function of government. They created a system whereby the government reflects the desires and convictions of the people. If those convictions become something other than the ones under which the Constitution was formed, it will cease to work as well. In other words: we get what we deserve as a people.
When society decried the greed, cowardice, irresponsibility, and downright contemptuous nature of our government, we are really heaping coals on ourselves. The people we elect reflect who we are and what we value. It's the way the system was set up. Again, I can't explain how genius this is. Truly a representative form of government.
Most of the political battles these days boil down to ideology. One side wanting to return to the ideals of founders and the other seeking to move forward towards progress and a new vision. Frankly, these are both far too grandiose of notions to ever be realistic.
The gradual progress of civilizations has improved some things for some people - that's true. The upward trend in history really just increase the distance between benefit and devastation. There is just as much sorrow as ever; we're just better at telling the story. In the same way, the founders of the US Constitution aren't all that enviable. Selfish, rabble-rousers mostly - certainly with a flair for the idealistic and an uncanny ability to motivate. History's demi-gods have always been that way.
What makes the most sense to me, in light of our genius Constitution, is a focus on the principles that actually work to produce a decent society. In this sense, neither side of the ideological divide is bereft of contributions. There is something to be said for responsibility and hard work, of course; there is also something to be said for compassion, empathy, and community.
I have no doubt that everyone engaged in US politics wants nothing more than to shape society towards a better set of values (in the hopes that those values would, in turn, shape a better government). The problem is that most people seem to think that values are instilled through education, logic, guilt, or force - that people adopt a new perspective because of something that clicks inside their head.
I just don't believe that. I believe people are transformed by experience. People are shaped to be responsible by being valued for who they are. I believe people begin to care about others when they've discovered human dignity in themselves. Despite our best efforts to instill our ideological convictions within us, I don't believe the path between our heads and our hearts is all that easy to navigate.
I don't spend a lot of time worrying about government or the future of our country. If they ask my opinion about something, I'm happy to give it - but ultimately what they do matters little to life, certainly less than our media and power obsessed culture wants us to believe. The government we have and the society in which we live is entirely shaped by the people of which they are comprised.
I know it's a novel concept and likely a fools errand, but my politics involves a real attempt to love, honor, and respect the people around me, even at the cost of my own comfort. I believe it is the only hope for a world worth living in.
