I cringe whenever I hear politicians say they want to be elected to office, because to “want” something implies a degree of ambition and zeal. Have you ever wanted something so badly that you would be willing to do anything to get it? If so, then at one time or another in your life, you have been a zealot.
Politicians, as a general rule, are by their very nature zealots whose ambition is for power, which, in a constitutional republic like the United States of America, exists in elected office.
Historically, U.S. politicians have sought office for a variety of reasons, among them: to advance a political agenda, to establish for themselves a forum to express their views, to achieve position, and to reap the monetary benefits of public service. But no matter how you slice it, what the bottom line comes down to is power.
There is power in pushing and leading a cause or agenda. There is power in standing on a soap box for everyone to see and hear you. There is power with achieving a higher social position. And, there is certainly power with money.
Power is narcissism, pure and simple. It is ego-boosting and self-aggrandizing, period. That is why so many politicians want it. And, as important as we’ve made self-esteem out to be in modern times, it is no wonder. After all, nothing really matters except feeling good about ourselves. If power makes a politician feel good, then so be it.
The trouble is, throughout human history, men and women have sought power with reckless abandon and relentless pursuit. You can trace the rise and fall of many civilizations, both ancient and contemporary, back to the pursuit of power. Rome crumbled from within because of the appetites of the Caesars and their successors. The Mongols collapsed because of power struggles between the Khans. Europe has been plagued with wars since the Dark Ages because of power—the last of which came at a cost of millions of human lives.
As different as their views and circumstances were, Vladimir Lenin and Adolf Hitler were both zealots who sought power. Just look at the results of this zeal: Ninety years of human suffering under communism and fascism, resulting in the deaths of millions. Men like Lenin and Hitler spawned followers, such as Mao Zedong, Pol-Pot, Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat, the Ayetollahs and Shas of Iran, Moamar Ghadaffi, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and yes, even Osama bin Laden. Their appetites for power have been the same, and the results of their power also comparable.
Julius Caesar’s ascension to power was the death of the Roman Republic and hastened the end of ancient Roman civilization.
The First Crusade of England’s King Richard the Lionheart to Israel led to a dozen more just like it and resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths.
Power and its pursuit have historically resulted in human suffering.
But human beings either don’t get this connection or just don’t care.
Closer to home, we see relative human suffering everyday with local economies reaping the consequences of overzealous politicians. Whether it’s a city councilor voting to raise taxes to pay for a state-of-the-art facility, or the President of the United States signing a bill that results in dozens of companies going out of business and thousands of jobs lost, there is a great toll on the human burden to fuel this power.
With great power comes great responsibility, to borrow a phrase.
There is a lot of truth in that.
Unfortunately, many of our elected leaders become so focused on the power that they lose sight of the responsibility that comes with it.
As such, I am not impressed by candidates who say they “want” public office. I am more impressed by candidates that express their interest as a duty and a responsibility, rather than a want or desire. God knows we could use fewer zealots and demagogues in elected office and more level-headed people who have a sense of responsibility and obligation to represent their neighborhoods, communities, districts and country.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
How to qualify for office
Every presidential election season seems to begin with a lot of talk about who is the most experienced, most energetic and most enthusiastic candidate for the office of President of the United States. But I dare say that none of these qualities are necessarily attractive when it comes to choosing the next commander-in-chief.
Experience is a fine thing when one is applying for a job. But a candidate for elected office should not be equated with a job applicant, no matter how often politicians like to use the analogy. While I submit that experience is appropriate for some elected state offices, it should not be so heavily weighted for elected representatives. For instance, a person with a law degree and who is a lawyer would be more qualified for the office of attorney-general than someone who doesn’t or isn’t. But just because a candidate has a law degree and is a lawyer does not mean he or she is more qualified to represent the people than someone who doesn’t or isn’t. I once read a letter to the editor that suggested our elected lawmakers needed to be qualified, meaning they should all be lawyers. Well, according to state and federal constitutions, the only qualifications to serve as a legislator are age, citizenship and residence. So, as long as you are a U.S. citizen, are of age to hold elected office, and you reside in the district from which you seek office, then you are qualified. This applies to candidates for city council all the way up to President of the United States.
There are no other qualifications. I cringe when I hear some media pundit, politician or voter question a candidate’s qualifications for office as though having a college degree and professional experience somehow raises their stock. Have you ever looked closely at your state’s voter pamphlet and the candidate biographies therein? Everyone lists their education, work experience and civic memberships first, as if being more educated or professional makes them a better candidate. Their ideas are always last on the biography.
That doesn’t mean these qualities can’t or shouldn’t be considered when voting for a candidate. Community involvement, leadership, work experience, and education are all feathers in the cap, and these virtues can often mean the difference in a close race or difficult decision.
However, in my humble opinion, the most important qualities of a political candidate are his or her ideas, beliefs, values, principles and opinions. Most people will not vote for a representative whose ideology and values are not congruent with their own. That is just a fact.
Why is it so important, then, for a politician to be “qualified” for the office he or she seeks? As long as a candidate meets the constitutional requirements for holding office, those should be the only qualifications we ought to be concerned about. Everything else merely contributes to the total package.
If you want to vote for a candidate because you think his or her law degree gives him or her an edge, then so be it. But please don’t insist that our lawmakers be qualified with the proper education or professional credentials, because it isn’t necessary, and it certainly isn’t a constitutional requirement.
America’s founding generation specifically designed our constitutional republic to be truly a reflection of the people by having “the people” elected to represent their own. That’s why the only qualifications to hold office are age, citizenship and residency.
A person with only a high school education is just as qualified to legislate as someone with a Juris Doctorate. Our founders believed that “the people” were entirely capable of representing themselves, and that they didn’t require people specially trained or educated to lead for them.
As such, the farmer and the cowhand are just as qualified to represent his or her community in elected office as the banker, the lawyer or the doctor.
Some may ask: Would I want a farmer making policy decisions for my state or the country rather than somebody educated in the law?
My answer to that is…heck yes!
I’ll vote for somebody with more common sense than formal education any day of the week over somebody with a dozen advanced degrees and more academic theories on the brain than practical sense.
Common sense isn’t learned in the classroom. We learn it through everyday living. Experience is the best teacher, or so the old saying goes.
But beware of experience. Only the right kind of experience provides common, practical sense. The wrong kind gives us the type of people who are running our communities, states and country now.
The wrong experience can lead to elitism and corruption. Experienced politicians, for example, can be dangerous because they know exactly how to say and what to do for re-election. They are skilled at pulling the wool over our eyes by telling us what we want to hear and erecting smokescreens between us and reality. They are adept at concealing their activities apart from their constituents and doing things under the radar of the electorate. And they artfully use verbiage and language that create loopholes for them in their campaigns and in the bills they propose.
And the scary thing is that most of these people are highly educated and well credentialed. They are just a little bit deficient when it comes to personal ethics and character.
The problems that often develop from experienced politicians are the very reasons why America’s founders settled on very basic qualifications that even common folks could meet. They wanted to encourage average people to serve as citizen legislators as a check and balance against the professional politicians, whose involvement and permeation into government even the founders understood would be inevitable.
Citizen legislators provide a counter balance to the public officials who are particularly skilled in politics, and who use those skills as a means to their own ends.
Unfortunately, there are too many voters who have bought into the false notion that a candidate for elected office is somehow less qualified if he or she doesn’t either have adequate education or proper experience. Modern culture deems a four-year college degree to be the minimum of adequate education, and civic involvement or prior public service to be the minimum of proper experience. It seems like the more political experience one has, the more attractive one appears as a candidate for higher office.
I don’t understand that mentality. It is as though the electorate is gradually reverting back to nobility and royalty, when Americans were ruled and governed by a monarch instead of an elected legislature of fellow citizens.
By expecting our candidates to have a minimum of a college degree and prior public service experience, we are adding qualifications that aren’t really there while alienating those citizens who don’t meet these expectations. We are essentially distinguishing between the privileged and the under-privileged by giving the former an edge over the latter.
Not everyone has a college degree, and not everyone has experience in public service or civic memberships. Some of us are just hard working, taxpaying citizens, residents and neighbors. We are raising our families and being responsible, productive members of society. Should we be written off or disqualified because we don’t have the expected amount of education or experience?
Elected office isn’t a job; it’s a leadership position. As such, the same expectations or qualifications required for employment shouldn’t be the same for leadership posts. Character, values and ethics ought to count more for public office than formal education or experience.
When the people lead, then leaders will usually follow. And where people lead, the leaders will often follow, too. But when the people leave leadership up to the leaders instead of taking it upon themselves, then all we ought to expect is calamity caused by political corruption.
When the cats are away the mice will play, so goes the old axiom. My suggestion, then, is more “cats” in the halls of Congress to keep the mice honest and in check. Because we all know how mice breed, don't we?
Experience is a fine thing when one is applying for a job. But a candidate for elected office should not be equated with a job applicant, no matter how often politicians like to use the analogy. While I submit that experience is appropriate for some elected state offices, it should not be so heavily weighted for elected representatives. For instance, a person with a law degree and who is a lawyer would be more qualified for the office of attorney-general than someone who doesn’t or isn’t. But just because a candidate has a law degree and is a lawyer does not mean he or she is more qualified to represent the people than someone who doesn’t or isn’t. I once read a letter to the editor that suggested our elected lawmakers needed to be qualified, meaning they should all be lawyers. Well, according to state and federal constitutions, the only qualifications to serve as a legislator are age, citizenship and residence. So, as long as you are a U.S. citizen, are of age to hold elected office, and you reside in the district from which you seek office, then you are qualified. This applies to candidates for city council all the way up to President of the United States.
There are no other qualifications. I cringe when I hear some media pundit, politician or voter question a candidate’s qualifications for office as though having a college degree and professional experience somehow raises their stock. Have you ever looked closely at your state’s voter pamphlet and the candidate biographies therein? Everyone lists their education, work experience and civic memberships first, as if being more educated or professional makes them a better candidate. Their ideas are always last on the biography.
That doesn’t mean these qualities can’t or shouldn’t be considered when voting for a candidate. Community involvement, leadership, work experience, and education are all feathers in the cap, and these virtues can often mean the difference in a close race or difficult decision.
However, in my humble opinion, the most important qualities of a political candidate are his or her ideas, beliefs, values, principles and opinions. Most people will not vote for a representative whose ideology and values are not congruent with their own. That is just a fact.
Why is it so important, then, for a politician to be “qualified” for the office he or she seeks? As long as a candidate meets the constitutional requirements for holding office, those should be the only qualifications we ought to be concerned about. Everything else merely contributes to the total package.
If you want to vote for a candidate because you think his or her law degree gives him or her an edge, then so be it. But please don’t insist that our lawmakers be qualified with the proper education or professional credentials, because it isn’t necessary, and it certainly isn’t a constitutional requirement.
America’s founding generation specifically designed our constitutional republic to be truly a reflection of the people by having “the people” elected to represent their own. That’s why the only qualifications to hold office are age, citizenship and residency.
A person with only a high school education is just as qualified to legislate as someone with a Juris Doctorate. Our founders believed that “the people” were entirely capable of representing themselves, and that they didn’t require people specially trained or educated to lead for them.
As such, the farmer and the cowhand are just as qualified to represent his or her community in elected office as the banker, the lawyer or the doctor.
Some may ask: Would I want a farmer making policy decisions for my state or the country rather than somebody educated in the law?
My answer to that is…heck yes!
I’ll vote for somebody with more common sense than formal education any day of the week over somebody with a dozen advanced degrees and more academic theories on the brain than practical sense.
Common sense isn’t learned in the classroom. We learn it through everyday living. Experience is the best teacher, or so the old saying goes.
But beware of experience. Only the right kind of experience provides common, practical sense. The wrong kind gives us the type of people who are running our communities, states and country now.
The wrong experience can lead to elitism and corruption. Experienced politicians, for example, can be dangerous because they know exactly how to say and what to do for re-election. They are skilled at pulling the wool over our eyes by telling us what we want to hear and erecting smokescreens between us and reality. They are adept at concealing their activities apart from their constituents and doing things under the radar of the electorate. And they artfully use verbiage and language that create loopholes for them in their campaigns and in the bills they propose.
And the scary thing is that most of these people are highly educated and well credentialed. They are just a little bit deficient when it comes to personal ethics and character.
The problems that often develop from experienced politicians are the very reasons why America’s founders settled on very basic qualifications that even common folks could meet. They wanted to encourage average people to serve as citizen legislators as a check and balance against the professional politicians, whose involvement and permeation into government even the founders understood would be inevitable.
Citizen legislators provide a counter balance to the public officials who are particularly skilled in politics, and who use those skills as a means to their own ends.
Unfortunately, there are too many voters who have bought into the false notion that a candidate for elected office is somehow less qualified if he or she doesn’t either have adequate education or proper experience. Modern culture deems a four-year college degree to be the minimum of adequate education, and civic involvement or prior public service to be the minimum of proper experience. It seems like the more political experience one has, the more attractive one appears as a candidate for higher office.
I don’t understand that mentality. It is as though the electorate is gradually reverting back to nobility and royalty, when Americans were ruled and governed by a monarch instead of an elected legislature of fellow citizens.
By expecting our candidates to have a minimum of a college degree and prior public service experience, we are adding qualifications that aren’t really there while alienating those citizens who don’t meet these expectations. We are essentially distinguishing between the privileged and the under-privileged by giving the former an edge over the latter.
Not everyone has a college degree, and not everyone has experience in public service or civic memberships. Some of us are just hard working, taxpaying citizens, residents and neighbors. We are raising our families and being responsible, productive members of society. Should we be written off or disqualified because we don’t have the expected amount of education or experience?
Elected office isn’t a job; it’s a leadership position. As such, the same expectations or qualifications required for employment shouldn’t be the same for leadership posts. Character, values and ethics ought to count more for public office than formal education or experience.
When the people lead, then leaders will usually follow. And where people lead, the leaders will often follow, too. But when the people leave leadership up to the leaders instead of taking it upon themselves, then all we ought to expect is calamity caused by political corruption.
When the cats are away the mice will play, so goes the old axiom. My suggestion, then, is more “cats” in the halls of Congress to keep the mice honest and in check. Because we all know how mice breed, don't we?
Experience can be a liability, too
Whoever said, “Experience is the best teacher,” probably was not referring to politics.
All too often, we tend to equate political competence with experience. But, in my opinion, political experience is more like political savvy. And when it comes to electing ethical people to public office, political experience can and does often get in the way of honest wholesomeness. Give me a naïve Jefferson Smith any day over any one of the savvy elitists we have in Washington, D.C., these days.
Truth be told, there are far too many Joseph Paines in office and precious few Jeff Smiths out there to challenge them; too many career politicians with the experience to know how to fool enough of us today, tomorrow and next election.
Why is it that so many media pundits, politicians and even voters place such great weight on political experience in a candidate?
Dwight D. Eisenhower did not exactly have the political experience by today’s standards to qualify as a viable candidate for President of the United States. Yet, he served two terms and presided over a period of unprecedented social and economic growth. This is because “Ike” had the executive experience to get the job done as commander-in-chief. After all, he commanded Allied Forces in the European Theater of World War II and was the mastermind behind the offensive known as “Operation: Overlord,” or the Normandy invasion.
Compare Ike’s resume to that of current President Barack Obama, whose executive experience prior to his election to the presidency was nill. But even in his relatively short career as a politician, Obama has gained more political experience than Ike ever had. Barry went from the Illinois state senate to the U.S. Senate to the White House in just six years. He has worked his way up the political ladder and through the ranks the way a career politician usually does.
So, when we talk about the experience of an elected official, it can either be positive or negative. Skilled, practical experience applied from one craft to another is one thing, but experience using political savvy to navigate through the waters of corruption without tipping over your canoe is something else. I consider the latter to be a liability more than an asset in politicians. The more skilled they are in politics, the more dangerous they become.
We hear the political advertisements all the time touting a candidate’s experience and his or her ability to “deliver” for his or her constituents. Take U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, D-NV, as an example. Here’s a guy running for his fifth term in the U.S. Senate. Originally elected to the Senate in 1986 Reid has spent 24 years on that side of Capitol Hill. He also spent several years before that as a U.S. Representative on the House side. Through the decades, Reid has indeed delivered for Nevada. He is particularly skilled at securing pork for his state, and especially for his home district of Southern Nevada and Las Vegas.
But during those years of wheeling and dealing Reid was evidently prepping himself for party advancement. When former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle was defeated in 2004 Reid had been quietly positioning himself in the party to be the logical successor to that partisan post.
He had worked his way up to Senate Minority Whip at the time Daschle was ousted. Then, in 2006, when the Democrats took control of both the House and Senate, Reid, as acting Senate Minority Leader, became the new Senate Majority Leader, which is arguably the third most powerful political position in Washington, D.C., behind the President of the United States and the House Speaker. (Sorry, Joe, but the Veep is not that powerful or influential apart from the POTUS.)
Every six years, Sen. Harry Reid is re-elected because he “delivers” for Nevada. Delivers what, though, money? There’s a lot more to representation than securing government pork for your district.
Reid didn’t regard his electorate in 2007 when a bill granting amnesty to illegal aliens was considered in Congress. He sided with his party.
Reid didn’t hear the voices of his constituents during the Bush years. While a majority of Nevadans asked for political cooperation in a time of war, Sen. Reid decided follow the commands of party leadership and go on the offensive as the democrats’ noisiest attack dog. He turned up the heat, opposing the POTUS at every turn and given every opportunity. He fought tooth and nail the way a stooge usually does by assaulting the president’s credibility, even his personal character.
Harry Reid has even undermined the efforts of the United States military. He was the one who was infamously quoted as saying “I believe this war (in Iraq) is lost.”
Reid went on to bite at the ankles of the president just the way a political attack dog is expected to. His attacks, in fact, were incessant and unceasing. Every day in the news there seemed to be a new sound bite of Senate Majority Leader Reid directing some negative comment about the war toward the president.
What a coincidence that Sen. Reid hasn’t made one negative peep about the wars on terror in the Middle East since a member of his own party has been in the White House.
Yes, indeed, Sen. Reid has delivered aplenty for Nevada, bribing his district with as much pork as he could wrestle away from Uncle Sam. The more money he figured to get for his state, the more likely his electorate would look the other way with regard to his activities inside the Beltway. Another word for it is “hush money,” a concept the Las Vegas mob and political powers that be in Southern Nevada, like Reid, know very well.
But Sen. Reid is merely a microcosm of the problem that exists across the country. In local, state and national politics, career politicians like Harry Reid abound. Every one of them is angling for position to advance in the political arena. They all want to be adored demagogues that are placed on pedestals and canonized with monuments.
They do what they do not for you and me, but for themselves; to feed their own egos and histrionic narcissism.
Political demagoguery is nothing new. It has existed for millennia, from the very beginning when men and women placed crowns on their heads and proclaimed themselves kings, queens, emperors and empresses, chieftains, Caesars, Khans, Pharoahs and Sultans over others.
Even here in the United States, where monarchies do not exist, demagoguery still does. Ours are elected, though, not anointed. They are better known as career politicians who like referring to their long tenures in office as “a lifetime in public service,” as though this service has come at a great personal sacrifice.
Balderdash.
A perfect example is the late Sen. Edward “Ted” Kennedy, who relished for years in the perpetuated myth that he was not only a great defender of the poor, but also the last of the legends of Kennedy Camelot. Teddy helped create the welfare state as we know it today. He was behind President Lyndon Baines Johnson’s push for a “Great Society” of progressive socioeconomic egalitarianism.
In his late years, Teddy was heralded as a champion of the less fortunate. Upon his death, thousands of people mourned him with Teddy Bears. Spare me.
Edward Kennedy did what he did for himself; not for anyone else. He was a womanizer, an alcohol abuser, and an irresponsible, spoiled rich beneficiary of the Kennedy Estate and Trust. How many black tie parties did Kennedy attend or host either at Martha’s Vineyard or in Washington, D.C., where the poor and less fortunate were invited? I’m sure he partied hard in honor of them, but I am not aware of any functions he attended in their presence. He was always surrounded by members of the social and/or political elite.
How much caviar did the late, great democratic senator from Massachusetts consume in honor of the poor, hungry and destitute?
America’s career politicians, like the late Edward Kennedy, have feathered for themselves quite comfortable nests through their decades in power. The only sacrifice, perhaps, is a lack of privacy. But then again, demagogues and narcissists relish much more in the attention they get than their privacy. How can they be worshipped by others in private?
Career politicians have built for themselves castles and exclusive, members-only kingdoms in their public arenas of power.
Worst of all, the American people have not only allowed this to happen, we have perpetuated it by continuing to return these ungrateful and expectant demagogues to power.
Thankfully, there is a current movement to end the monopoly that career politicians hold in America’s centers of political power. I’m not talking specifically about the TEA Party; although it is part of this movement. I refer to the general angst and anger among the populace over a government that has become too big and too invasive thanks to the efforts of political demagogues.
There’s no telling how long this sentiment is going to last. The mood of the electorate, after all, is the impetus of changing political winds.
But maybe this year, this time around, the career politicians will get called to the carpet and the demagogues will finally get what’s coming to them.
Abraham Lincoln once said very candidly, yet artfully, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, or all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”
Hopefully, the year 2010 will be the latter.
All too often, we tend to equate political competence with experience. But, in my opinion, political experience is more like political savvy. And when it comes to electing ethical people to public office, political experience can and does often get in the way of honest wholesomeness. Give me a naïve Jefferson Smith any day over any one of the savvy elitists we have in Washington, D.C., these days.
Truth be told, there are far too many Joseph Paines in office and precious few Jeff Smiths out there to challenge them; too many career politicians with the experience to know how to fool enough of us today, tomorrow and next election.
Why is it that so many media pundits, politicians and even voters place such great weight on political experience in a candidate?
Dwight D. Eisenhower did not exactly have the political experience by today’s standards to qualify as a viable candidate for President of the United States. Yet, he served two terms and presided over a period of unprecedented social and economic growth. This is because “Ike” had the executive experience to get the job done as commander-in-chief. After all, he commanded Allied Forces in the European Theater of World War II and was the mastermind behind the offensive known as “Operation: Overlord,” or the Normandy invasion.
Compare Ike’s resume to that of current President Barack Obama, whose executive experience prior to his election to the presidency was nill. But even in his relatively short career as a politician, Obama has gained more political experience than Ike ever had. Barry went from the Illinois state senate to the U.S. Senate to the White House in just six years. He has worked his way up the political ladder and through the ranks the way a career politician usually does.
So, when we talk about the experience of an elected official, it can either be positive or negative. Skilled, practical experience applied from one craft to another is one thing, but experience using political savvy to navigate through the waters of corruption without tipping over your canoe is something else. I consider the latter to be a liability more than an asset in politicians. The more skilled they are in politics, the more dangerous they become.
We hear the political advertisements all the time touting a candidate’s experience and his or her ability to “deliver” for his or her constituents. Take U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, D-NV, as an example. Here’s a guy running for his fifth term in the U.S. Senate. Originally elected to the Senate in 1986 Reid has spent 24 years on that side of Capitol Hill. He also spent several years before that as a U.S. Representative on the House side. Through the decades, Reid has indeed delivered for Nevada. He is particularly skilled at securing pork for his state, and especially for his home district of Southern Nevada and Las Vegas.
But during those years of wheeling and dealing Reid was evidently prepping himself for party advancement. When former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle was defeated in 2004 Reid had been quietly positioning himself in the party to be the logical successor to that partisan post.
He had worked his way up to Senate Minority Whip at the time Daschle was ousted. Then, in 2006, when the Democrats took control of both the House and Senate, Reid, as acting Senate Minority Leader, became the new Senate Majority Leader, which is arguably the third most powerful political position in Washington, D.C., behind the President of the United States and the House Speaker. (Sorry, Joe, but the Veep is not that powerful or influential apart from the POTUS.)
Every six years, Sen. Harry Reid is re-elected because he “delivers” for Nevada. Delivers what, though, money? There’s a lot more to representation than securing government pork for your district.
Reid didn’t regard his electorate in 2007 when a bill granting amnesty to illegal aliens was considered in Congress. He sided with his party.
Reid didn’t hear the voices of his constituents during the Bush years. While a majority of Nevadans asked for political cooperation in a time of war, Sen. Reid decided follow the commands of party leadership and go on the offensive as the democrats’ noisiest attack dog. He turned up the heat, opposing the POTUS at every turn and given every opportunity. He fought tooth and nail the way a stooge usually does by assaulting the president’s credibility, even his personal character.
Harry Reid has even undermined the efforts of the United States military. He was the one who was infamously quoted as saying “I believe this war (in Iraq) is lost.”
Reid went on to bite at the ankles of the president just the way a political attack dog is expected to. His attacks, in fact, were incessant and unceasing. Every day in the news there seemed to be a new sound bite of Senate Majority Leader Reid directing some negative comment about the war toward the president.
What a coincidence that Sen. Reid hasn’t made one negative peep about the wars on terror in the Middle East since a member of his own party has been in the White House.
Yes, indeed, Sen. Reid has delivered aplenty for Nevada, bribing his district with as much pork as he could wrestle away from Uncle Sam. The more money he figured to get for his state, the more likely his electorate would look the other way with regard to his activities inside the Beltway. Another word for it is “hush money,” a concept the Las Vegas mob and political powers that be in Southern Nevada, like Reid, know very well.
But Sen. Reid is merely a microcosm of the problem that exists across the country. In local, state and national politics, career politicians like Harry Reid abound. Every one of them is angling for position to advance in the political arena. They all want to be adored demagogues that are placed on pedestals and canonized with monuments.
They do what they do not for you and me, but for themselves; to feed their own egos and histrionic narcissism.
Political demagoguery is nothing new. It has existed for millennia, from the very beginning when men and women placed crowns on their heads and proclaimed themselves kings, queens, emperors and empresses, chieftains, Caesars, Khans, Pharoahs and Sultans over others.
Even here in the United States, where monarchies do not exist, demagoguery still does. Ours are elected, though, not anointed. They are better known as career politicians who like referring to their long tenures in office as “a lifetime in public service,” as though this service has come at a great personal sacrifice.
Balderdash.
A perfect example is the late Sen. Edward “Ted” Kennedy, who relished for years in the perpetuated myth that he was not only a great defender of the poor, but also the last of the legends of Kennedy Camelot. Teddy helped create the welfare state as we know it today. He was behind President Lyndon Baines Johnson’s push for a “Great Society” of progressive socioeconomic egalitarianism.
In his late years, Teddy was heralded as a champion of the less fortunate. Upon his death, thousands of people mourned him with Teddy Bears. Spare me.
Edward Kennedy did what he did for himself; not for anyone else. He was a womanizer, an alcohol abuser, and an irresponsible, spoiled rich beneficiary of the Kennedy Estate and Trust. How many black tie parties did Kennedy attend or host either at Martha’s Vineyard or in Washington, D.C., where the poor and less fortunate were invited? I’m sure he partied hard in honor of them, but I am not aware of any functions he attended in their presence. He was always surrounded by members of the social and/or political elite.
How much caviar did the late, great democratic senator from Massachusetts consume in honor of the poor, hungry and destitute?
America’s career politicians, like the late Edward Kennedy, have feathered for themselves quite comfortable nests through their decades in power. The only sacrifice, perhaps, is a lack of privacy. But then again, demagogues and narcissists relish much more in the attention they get than their privacy. How can they be worshipped by others in private?
Career politicians have built for themselves castles and exclusive, members-only kingdoms in their public arenas of power.
Worst of all, the American people have not only allowed this to happen, we have perpetuated it by continuing to return these ungrateful and expectant demagogues to power.
Thankfully, there is a current movement to end the monopoly that career politicians hold in America’s centers of political power. I’m not talking specifically about the TEA Party; although it is part of this movement. I refer to the general angst and anger among the populace over a government that has become too big and too invasive thanks to the efforts of political demagogues.
There’s no telling how long this sentiment is going to last. The mood of the electorate, after all, is the impetus of changing political winds.
But maybe this year, this time around, the career politicians will get called to the carpet and the demagogues will finally get what’s coming to them.
Abraham Lincoln once said very candidly, yet artfully, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, or all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”
Hopefully, the year 2010 will be the latter.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
A farewell...not a swan song
This is going to be my last blog entry for a while. I don't know yet how long "a while" is going to be, but first things first.
Yesterday my god-daughter graduated from high school. The keynote speaker at her graduation talked about chasing dreams. I was reminded of similar words spoken at my own high school graduation 18 years ago.
What made the words spoken yesterday so poignant to me was that, although the speaker was directing his speech to the graduates, he was really speaking to all of us.
I remember meeting my god-daughter for the first time seven years ago when she was only 11 years old. Now she is a grown woman and a high school graduate. I am humbly reminded of just how quickly time passes and things change.
I am also humbly reminded that the years that pass cannot be recovered. They are gone forever.
When I graduated from high school, I had a dream, a talent, a gift and a passion that I wanted to pursue. Eighteen years later, I am not only still pursuing it, but have admittedly been spinning my wheels in that pursuit.
With a new baby and a household to provide for, I have been so busy these past few months working at work and working at home without so much as a breather or a break. You parents know what I'm talking about. Even when you're not working, you're working.
Well, driving home last night from our god-daughter's graduation, I turned to my wife with a revelation. I told her that I had to pursue my dream once more; not just because the keynote speech was a keen wake-up call, but also because I now have a five month old son to be a role model for.
What message am I sending him if I continue to procrastinate on my dream, my passion and my life's pursuit? If I tell him to follow his heart and his dreams, and that the hard work and sacrifice to achieve them are worth it, will there be any credibility behind those words of wisdom? More poignantly, will he believe me if he sees that I have given up on mine?
Dreams only die when we stop chasing them, and nothing is impossible if we put our trust in Almighty God and boldly pursue the opportunities He presents to us. The Lord doesn't just drop things in our lap. He actually expects us to assert ourselves. Admittedly, I have not done a very good job of asserting myself with the opportunities He has afforded me.
I wish to change that today.
But being a family man now with parental responsibilities, a full-time job, and chores at home, I find my time to be a preciously shrinking commodity. I must make changes to fit my pursuits into my daily routine if I am to continue chasing my dream.
Therefore, I write this commentary as a farewell, my last for a while. I don't know when I will resume my blogging; maybe in a few months, years, or maybe never. Who knows? It really isn't that important to me anymore, and in order for me to make the changes necessary to follow my dreams, I must be willing to give something up.
I have chosen to give up my participation in the conversation here. I'm not giving up my involvement in politics or my responsibility to stay informed on the issues. I still feel very strongly about one day representing my community in elected office and continuing the political conversation, because I think that it is very important.
However, the blogging I do on this site and others is less important to me. I've devoted a lot of time to it over the years, and probably excessively so. Things must change if I am going to break the cycle of dead or dying dreams; those that get conveniently placed on the shelf with the intention of coming back to at a later time only to become forgotten.
I don't want to do that. I don't want to be one of those people who, in his old age and sunset years, looks back on his life with regret over the things he didn't do or dreams that died because they weren't being chased anymore.
I can't get the last 18 years back; but I sure as heck can try to make the most of the next 18 years by making up for lost time.
After all, when my son is old enough to begin following his heart's desires, I want to be able to counsel, advise and guide him with the authority of somebody who has done it himself. I don't have to succeed, but I do have to try.
While there is still opportunity left in the United States of America, I want to take full advantage of this freedom to pursue my dreams. If nothing else, I will have the satisfaction of knowing that I got up and danced when I had the chance; I didn't spend it all as a wall flower looking back afterward and wondering "what if"?
God gives us this one life to make the most of ourselves for His sake, His glory. If I do nothing with the gifts and talents He has blessed me with, then how am I honoring Him by letting those things go to waste? The truth is, I am not.
Yes, my responsibilities as a husband and a father come before even my dreams. But nothing is impossible if we are determined enough to do the impossible, and trust in the Lord to deliver us to our Promised Land.
No doubt some, or perhaps most, of you will be relieved to see me go. I can only imagine how painful it is to read my very long posts. They are the kind of blogs that you have to brew a cup of coffee in the middle of just to finish. LOL
Others, I'm sure, will be happy to see me go simply because they detest anyone who dares identify himself as a traditional American conservative. One less conservative voice, after all, brings them that much closer to a left-wing, progressive utopia where everyone is the same, has the same and thinks the same way.
But I know there are a few who I will miss with all my heart.
This doesn't mean I'm hanging up my musket and giving up the fight. Far from it. What it means is that I will resume the life of a quiet leader in my household, my neighborhood, and my community. When the war drums beat and the bugle calls, I will answer armed with the Bible, the Constitution, and a will to fight for their protection.
I won't let my country down.
I won't let my son down, either.
I am about to do what I've said all along to myself that I would do, and I will mean everything I say.
When all is said and done, I will be able to look at myself in the mirror with contentment, happiness and satisfaction knowing that I gave it my all, my best shot. I will have tried, and my efforts will not be in vain.
My very best wishes to each and every one of you. May the wind always be at your back. May the sun always shine upon your face. And may the grace of God bless you as it has blessed me.
God bless you and keep you. And remember: Dreams only die when we stop chasing them.
Yours very sincerely,
Dagwood
Yesterday my god-daughter graduated from high school. The keynote speaker at her graduation talked about chasing dreams. I was reminded of similar words spoken at my own high school graduation 18 years ago.
What made the words spoken yesterday so poignant to me was that, although the speaker was directing his speech to the graduates, he was really speaking to all of us.
I remember meeting my god-daughter for the first time seven years ago when she was only 11 years old. Now she is a grown woman and a high school graduate. I am humbly reminded of just how quickly time passes and things change.
I am also humbly reminded that the years that pass cannot be recovered. They are gone forever.
When I graduated from high school, I had a dream, a talent, a gift and a passion that I wanted to pursue. Eighteen years later, I am not only still pursuing it, but have admittedly been spinning my wheels in that pursuit.
With a new baby and a household to provide for, I have been so busy these past few months working at work and working at home without so much as a breather or a break. You parents know what I'm talking about. Even when you're not working, you're working.
Well, driving home last night from our god-daughter's graduation, I turned to my wife with a revelation. I told her that I had to pursue my dream once more; not just because the keynote speech was a keen wake-up call, but also because I now have a five month old son to be a role model for.
What message am I sending him if I continue to procrastinate on my dream, my passion and my life's pursuit? If I tell him to follow his heart and his dreams, and that the hard work and sacrifice to achieve them are worth it, will there be any credibility behind those words of wisdom? More poignantly, will he believe me if he sees that I have given up on mine?
Dreams only die when we stop chasing them, and nothing is impossible if we put our trust in Almighty God and boldly pursue the opportunities He presents to us. The Lord doesn't just drop things in our lap. He actually expects us to assert ourselves. Admittedly, I have not done a very good job of asserting myself with the opportunities He has afforded me.
I wish to change that today.
But being a family man now with parental responsibilities, a full-time job, and chores at home, I find my time to be a preciously shrinking commodity. I must make changes to fit my pursuits into my daily routine if I am to continue chasing my dream.
Therefore, I write this commentary as a farewell, my last for a while. I don't know when I will resume my blogging; maybe in a few months, years, or maybe never. Who knows? It really isn't that important to me anymore, and in order for me to make the changes necessary to follow my dreams, I must be willing to give something up.
I have chosen to give up my participation in the conversation here. I'm not giving up my involvement in politics or my responsibility to stay informed on the issues. I still feel very strongly about one day representing my community in elected office and continuing the political conversation, because I think that it is very important.
However, the blogging I do on this site and others is less important to me. I've devoted a lot of time to it over the years, and probably excessively so. Things must change if I am going to break the cycle of dead or dying dreams; those that get conveniently placed on the shelf with the intention of coming back to at a later time only to become forgotten.
I don't want to do that. I don't want to be one of those people who, in his old age and sunset years, looks back on his life with regret over the things he didn't do or dreams that died because they weren't being chased anymore.
I can't get the last 18 years back; but I sure as heck can try to make the most of the next 18 years by making up for lost time.
After all, when my son is old enough to begin following his heart's desires, I want to be able to counsel, advise and guide him with the authority of somebody who has done it himself. I don't have to succeed, but I do have to try.
While there is still opportunity left in the United States of America, I want to take full advantage of this freedom to pursue my dreams. If nothing else, I will have the satisfaction of knowing that I got up and danced when I had the chance; I didn't spend it all as a wall flower looking back afterward and wondering "what if"?
God gives us this one life to make the most of ourselves for His sake, His glory. If I do nothing with the gifts and talents He has blessed me with, then how am I honoring Him by letting those things go to waste? The truth is, I am not.
Yes, my responsibilities as a husband and a father come before even my dreams. But nothing is impossible if we are determined enough to do the impossible, and trust in the Lord to deliver us to our Promised Land.
No doubt some, or perhaps most, of you will be relieved to see me go. I can only imagine how painful it is to read my very long posts. They are the kind of blogs that you have to brew a cup of coffee in the middle of just to finish. LOL
Others, I'm sure, will be happy to see me go simply because they detest anyone who dares identify himself as a traditional American conservative. One less conservative voice, after all, brings them that much closer to a left-wing, progressive utopia where everyone is the same, has the same and thinks the same way.
But I know there are a few who I will miss with all my heart.
This doesn't mean I'm hanging up my musket and giving up the fight. Far from it. What it means is that I will resume the life of a quiet leader in my household, my neighborhood, and my community. When the war drums beat and the bugle calls, I will answer armed with the Bible, the Constitution, and a will to fight for their protection.
I won't let my country down.
I won't let my son down, either.
I am about to do what I've said all along to myself that I would do, and I will mean everything I say.
When all is said and done, I will be able to look at myself in the mirror with contentment, happiness and satisfaction knowing that I gave it my all, my best shot. I will have tried, and my efforts will not be in vain.
My very best wishes to each and every one of you. May the wind always be at your back. May the sun always shine upon your face. And may the grace of God bless you as it has blessed me.
God bless you and keep you. And remember: Dreams only die when we stop chasing them.
Yours very sincerely,
Dagwood
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
