The Founding Fathers never planned for professional politicians, and would have been horrified at the prospect. Professional politicians are nothing less than the new degenerate nobility, with none of the sense of noblesse oblige that traditionally is part of that class. They see their only, or at least their highest, responsibility as keeping themselves in office.
What the founding fathers had in mind were representatives who were persons of sufficient substance and civic mindedness, that they could sacrifice a certain amount of time for the doing of the peoples' business. They were to be compensated for the time spent away from the undertakings from which they derived their livelihood.
Seldom before in our history has Congress contained more able and brilliant people. Unfortunately, that ability and brilliance is not being applied in all, or even a majority, of the peoplesÕ best interest. They are being applied toward making the whole legal system too complex.
For the system to work we could use less ability, less brilliance, less complexity, and more common sense. Term limits, anyone?
These politicians are unwilling to lead, for those who take definite stands are seldom re-elected. The last I remember any taking a real stand on a controversial issue was when Congress voted on term limits. Bombast ruled the day, the proponents came to their senses, and the most important legislation in decades went down the tubes.
This problemÑlack of real interest in the public welfareÑis worsening. There is an immense load of legislation before Congress, almost all of it worthless Òfeel goodÓ bills, or those with high-sounding names that do nothing, or do harm to society as a whole while benefiting a small segment, or the government itself. The so-called ÒPatriot ActÓ is a prime example. ItÕs primary goal seems to be the abolition of civil rights, wrapped in nationalistic cultism. The implication is that if you oppose the loss of your rights in the interest of Ònational security,Ó then you are unpatriotic. Those who are familiar with the history of Germany in the 1930Õs will recognize this for what it is, instantly.
Another excellent example is Ògun controlÓ legislation. Such measures are passed strictly as Òfeel goodÓ legislation. They are passed so the voters will feel good that their representatives are apparently doing something. However, a criminal is defined as one who does not obey the law. If it is illegal to own a firearm, then a criminal is expected to obey the law? Absurd. These laws will allow the conviction of violent criminals on gun charges? That sounds well, for it is better to have a criminal off the street (in prison, learning to be a better criminal) than not to convict at all. For this legislation has another beneficial effectÑit allows the police to appear more effective than they are, and gives the police chief, district attorney, and local politicians bragging rights.
But will it be used even that effectively? Police are promoted on the basis of skills and knowledge that can be tested, and on their proven ability to catch criminals. Every arrest is an investment in their future career and hope for advancement. Under those conditions, who are the most attractive targets of their attention? The easy ones. That means the otherwise law-abiding who did not fill out the paperwork with perfect precision and accuracy. Incompetence is a crime for a private citizen dealing with the governmentÑunless they make large donations to the right political organization, or can afford to fund a law firm. But the arrest, prosecution, and conviction of that bumbling but otherwise law abiding citizen does add to the tally of all involved. Meanwhile, the local drug dealer buys a new car, and decides itÕs time to diversify his or her assets into cleaner investments.
The appearance of integrity, rather than its substance, is already paramount in many portions of society. As long as no law or rule was technically violated, a personÕs actions are honestÑeven if they cheat honest but uninformed or unwary people out of the substance of their lives. The only real law we have these days is: DON'T GET CAUGHT!!! High corporate executives destroy the lives of thousands, increase profits for a time, and then move onÑleaving a once beneficial enterprise primed for disaster. These people are lionized. If they bent the law, so what? TheyÕre rich, and therefore right. On the rare occasions that their abuses are so awful that they are caught, if convicted, they face a few months of enforced relaxation at taxpayer expense before moving on to a comfortable life on the lecture and book circuit. Effectively, they are penalized for getting caught, and rewarded for trying. They are never made to set right the problems, pain and suffering they caused.
A congressperson is charged, tried, and convicted of breaking the law, of using the power of office and influence to break the law, and yet remains righteously defiant. Speaks to his former colleagues as an equal, even superior, without a shred of remorse, shame, or even simple humility. This is accepted. His incredible ego and hubris is admired. No one holds him up to the ridicule he deserves.
Rare is the individual who owns his or her own mistakes. Mistakes are denied, or blamed on someone else, preferably someone too vaguely identified to receive retribution, or too small and weak to resist it. Years ago, I received a citation for a traffic violation. I was in the wrong, the officer knew it, and I knew it. Instead of paying the fine and taking a tremendous increase in car insurance, I went before the judge. He and the officer were expecting me to try to get out of the charge. I completely flabbergasted them when the judge asked me to explain my side of the story. I said, ÒYour honor, I am guilty. I was stupid and I know better.Ó After a moment to recover, he asked, ÒThen why are you here?Ó I replied, ÒTo ask you for court supervision, and keep my momentary stupidity from my insurance company.Ó He asked about any prior arrests or convictions in the last five years. I had none. Then he said, with real pleasure, ÒIÕm supposed to give you ninety days supervision. Under the circumstances, weÕll make that thirty days.Ó Then he recessed the court, came down from the bench, and shook my hand.
These days, such a display of integrity on my part would be severely penalized, though not entirely by the legal system. The legal fine has increased, as has the administrative hassle and lost time. But the insurance company will raise my yearly premium by twice to three times the amount of the fineÑfor the next five years.
All systems of government rely on the integrity of those within them. Any system, from absolute despotism to complete anarchy, works well when its members are persons of good character and integrity. Our system was designed to provide a check on the integrity of our government. That check is supposed to be ÒWe, the people.Ó Such a system of government only works with an informed, educated populace, which we no longer have. The politicians give lip service to education improvement, but take steps to assure that improvements will be slow, and that fewer people will be taught to think. Oh yes, thinking must be taught, either by others or by oneÕs self. A thinking, intelligently informed populace is not likely to retain a politician in office who is a liar or even a temporizer, so this is not in the politicians' best interest.
And who is doing the informing? The so called mediaÑthe "journalists", whose livelihood is protected by the First Amendment, have gone over to the politiciansÕ side. They no longer feel it is their duty to inform the public, but rather to sell their product, no matter how sanctimoniously they proclaim otherwise. And what they sell is a product, manufactured from the raw material of the real events and facts. These, taken out of context, spun, twisted, distorted, and ÒeditedÓ can be used to give a sensational and entertaining picture. The result is almost always as negative as it can be made, regardless of who gets hurt. The Tet OffensiveÑindeed, Viet Nam in its entiretyÑis a perfect example. We are still discovering just what caused it and just what happened. Any emotionally charged issue is fair game: gun control , birth control and abortion, the environment, the greenhouse effect, the drug problem, AIDS, minority rights. All these are frequently, if not always, distorted, sensationalized, and played for their sales potential. Why? Because those in the media are uneducated in history (thanks to the efforts of the politicians and their minions to turn history into pablum to manipulate the masses). It is not because they are vicious, greedy, or anything elseÑthey simply don't know history, or science, or technology, or nature.
Like too many in these later times, they are usually city dwellers, and have become divorced from nature, cynical of human nature, and absurdly na•ve outside of their own perspective. Show one of them a video of a fawn being brought down by a wolf pack, and they will feel sorry for the fawn. They will not feel happy for the wolves, who will now live, or for the other deer who will eat better, and perhaps not starve, because there is one less mouth to feed. Nor will they see that there will be more food for the deer, and for us, because the wolves also kill rodents who eat grain, and deer also eat our grainÑjust ask a farmer in an area with a high deer population. They also believe, tacitly and unthinkingly, that we are not subject to the same natural cycle. They may say not, but their awareness is only intellectual. They may see these patterns, but are fundamentally, perhaps subconsciously, unwilling to admit that we are truly subject to them. There are no wolves taking our old and weak, our unfit, or our burgeoning young. Few of these people have almost died often enough to understand death as a part of life, and thereby miss the savor of life.
The reason for this is that they, too, have not been trained to think properly: objectively and completely. ÒCompletelyÓ means from as many points of view as possible. These days, other points of view are rejected. Oh, two are acceptableÉone can be played off against the other, sometimes even in a mutually denigrating way. This is passed off as objectivity, but it is not. It is conflict. Conflict is sensational. Conflict SELLS!
Real objectivity considers at least one other point of view: both sides are at least partially right, indeed, each side may be completely right within their own context. This is hard. This does not polarize the two sides. This might even lead to understanding and resolution of the conflict. But that would mean no more storiesÉsales would sufferÉweÕd have to ÒreportÓ on something elseÉNO! CanÕt do that! Must increase profits as fast as possibleÉAfter all, itÕs US versus THEMÉ!
To quote that very wise and funny man, Walt Kelly: ÒWe have met the enemy, and he is us.Ó So much for our first line of defense against tyranny, the First Amendment.
Where are the people of common sense and integrity? Where are those trained to think objectively and completely? We are hiding. Why? Because we don't want to swim in the cesspool; and maybe the long night will not come in our time, or probably not in our children's time; or because we feel impotent to stop the process, or are unwilling to prolong the agony.
Of all of these reasons, I, too, am somewhat guilty. But I am also a student of history. The long night may well come in my time, or my childrenÕs. I am not helpless against the situation: Have computer. Will write. As for prolonging the agony, as one very familiar with it, I have a philosophy: Pain is the universe telling you that youÕre not dead yet.
When they come for the Jews, I will protest, even if I am not a Jew.
When they come for the Christians, I will protest, even if I am not a Christian.
When they come for the Moslems, I will protest, even if I am not a Moslem and have my doubts about them at the moment.
When they come for the Buddhists, I will protest, even if I am not a Buddhist.
When they come for the Hindus, I will protest, even if I am not a Hindu.
When they come for the Pagans, I will protest, even if I am not a Pagan.
When they come for the Africans, I will protest, even if I am not African.
When they come for the Asians, I will protest, even if I am not Asian.
When they come for the Hispanics, I will protest, even if I am not Hispanic.
When they come for the Europeans, I will protest, even if I am not European.
When they come for the <your group identifier here>, I will protest, even if I am not a <your group identifier here>.
When they come for Anybody who is an advocate of Responsibility and Freedom, who sees no difference between those two words, I will protest, for I am such a person.
And when they come for me, I hope enough people have woken up that I donÕt have to protest, and the people do not have to rely on the Second Amendment.
©Ross A. Martinek 7/2/2006