@HoustonSam , you articulate well the precise difference in how we view things. I think the irresponsible behavior of politicians is a relatively recent phenomenon, and that the problem is that the voices of most of us - non-ideologues who see the value in compromise and accommodation for the advancement of the good - aren't being heard. The WSJ ran a long piece last week about the collapse of the middle, about how political parties are gravitating toward their extremes, with (to use the U.S. as an example) the Dems pushing socialism and the confiscation of wealth, and Republicans pushing anti-immigrant nativism. Which party represents Main Street these days? Could it be that most folks are economically conservative and socially moderate? Do such folks matter to either party?
You think the problem is cultural, I think it is institutional. The parties were supposed to forge consensus and coalition, but instead they create artificial divisions. But in the end, I think, politicians are responding to the environment they're in. Pandering to extremism and tribalism pays these days, and the task is to figure out why that is. To me, there's a third actor that may be the true evil in the room - the media. The media is the most irresponsible institution in this country, IMO, smug, arrogant, unmoored from principle and out of control. I have no solutions to suggest - indeed, the Constitution protects it on the assumption that a free press is vital to the functioning of a democracy. Well, these days it is inciting mobs, exploiting divisions and utterly unconcerned with its critics.
I'm not calling for censorship, but in the old days the press engaged in self-censorship and took pride in itself as a profession. These days, everyone, it seems, is a yellow journalist with an agenda. The media used to report the news, now it thinks its calling is to create and manipulate it.
Only one political party is gravitating toward its extremes--that of the Marxist Democrats (a redundant term, the Marxists have ever hidden behind a facade of "democracy" and 'serving the people'). The GOP has ever thrown its 'extremists' who would fight that Marxism, and restore original Constitutional intent to the wolves, even going so far as to decry them when history, time and again, has proven those 'extremists' to be correct. That has only accelerated since Joe McCarthy and Goldwater were pitched under the bus.
I think the missing political link, so to speak, is that no matter what 'tribe' you belong to or identify with outside the Beltway, within that highway circle, there are different tribes, ones which only pay tribute to those outside tribes in order to retain their positions, wealth growing opportunities, and power. The one, unifying, tribal affiliation for those outside the Beltway--the one which matters most, "American", has been ditched for (at best) hyphenated versions which place some other affiliation or 'identity' first. In that we have already been balkanized, just not along geographical lines. We, as Americans, no longer have even that unity of purpose, except when defined by some other seminal issue which cuts across those other tribal boundaries.
Those tribes within the Beltway (and the MSM are one--the enablers and kingmakers for the rest) all clamor for their own sort of overall dominance, but are really bands of the same tribe. They have the same goal, and when the cameras are off, the lights go down, they are in it for that common goal, going to the same parties, eating from the same table.
Despite their oaths:
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.
to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, the very simple meaning inherent in the prose of that same document has been subverted by over two hundred years of political nigling and semantic warping until we have reached the point that simple phrases have been distorted well beyond any semblance of Original Intent.
Furthermore, as required in 28 U.S. Code § 453, all Federal Judges shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office:
“I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as (title of office) under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God"
It is just a bit different for SCOTUS justices:
“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.â€
Now, the holders of these offices have these in common, that all proclaim, without reservation nor duress that they will "
protect and defend the Constitution of the United States", and in so doing, undertake the obligation to proceed within the confines of that document, and embrace the duties of their offices as prescribed therein.
Yet, as we clearly see, a plurality, if not a majority, have indeed abdicated the responsibilities of their oaths of office for the express purpose of retaining power through political favor granted to the various interest groups outside the Beltway, to the exclusion of others, to garner votes from those favored groups without any consideration for the Constitution.
Regardless of motive, be that the immediate compensation (pecuniary or otherwise), promises of future appointments granting such compensation, less tangible 'favors', or the heady aura of political power and media attention, or some combination thereof, the result is often the same: the Constitution, and indeed the People that compact represents are left wanting.
Repealing the 16th Amendment is a great step toward restoring freedom to those who exchange their skills and labor for an equal value in trade or media of exchange, but repealing the 17th Amendment would restore to the several States the power they once had in Congress assembled, and allow those States to meed one another on equal terms in votes in the Senate.
Without clouding the issues by leaving those offices subject to the popular vote, but instead having them serve their respective State Governments under the Constitution, the desire to aggregate power at the Federal level would be offset by loyalty to the very States they represent, whose legislatures would place them in and remove them from their office, rather than the popular vote.
When this was the case, the powers of the States were more jealously guarded against Federal usurpation, and thus, government was a level closer to the People.
The House of Representatives was always intended to be the most direct representation of the interests of the People, elected by the People, and seats determined by the numbers of people present in their jurisdictions, those seated elected by the popular vote of those in the district they represent.
Thus, the three separate interests, those of the People, the States, and in the person of the President, the interests of the Federal District and Government were represented, and the courts were present to adjudicate disputes over such differences in law and issues of conflict which could not otherwise be resolved. A fine system of checks and balances, one which would not willy-nilly spend from the public coffers, and would allocate resources obtained by tariff and excise taxes on certain goods to the performance of its Constitutional duties.
It goes without saying that that model, that grand design, has been corrupted. Eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty, and at any time that guard has been let down or compromised by extenuating circumstance, we have stepped away from the idea of a limited Federal Government, one only administering to its limited duties outside the Federal District.
Duties such as maintaining a system of standards for trade, a common currency, the defense of our mutual borders (from the perspective of the States--the common defense), to maintain the post roads (such highways as needed for the movement of mail), and to settle disputes between the States fall among those. Perhaps I missed a couple off the top of my head, but in no wise did that include deciding such matters as who should grow what crop, fill in a mud hole, pick up a rock or cut a tree on their own land.
That system has been corrupted by those who have found they can, in Congress assembled, vote from the public coffers that which they need to ensure their increased power and wealth, in contempt of their oaths of office and of the Almighty they swore their oaths before. By the same token, those who do not fulfill their oaths are indeed expressing their contempt for the very people and states they represent.
If we were to add anything to our Constitution, I would add the ability of the People to petition to recall and unseat any sitting member of Congress.
