In part three of this review we will look at how Paine envisioned the makeup of the electorate. "...The legislative part [is] to be managed by a select number chosen from the whole body, who are supposed to have the same concerns at stake which those have who appointed them, and who will act in the same manner as the whole body would act were they present." Now, this seems like a reasonable position that the citizenry should expect of its elected representatives. But, as this Rasmussen Report shows, the reality is far removed from the ideal. While the whole report is interesting , the one finding that sticks out to me the most and speaks directly to the issue Paine is writing about is the following: "Interestingly, though, there’s general agreement across gender, age and racial lines that their local representative doesn’t care what voters think. Seventy-eight percent (78%) of all voters think most legislators listen most to their party leaders in Congress rather than to the voters they represent." Think about that for second, over three quarters of the sampled populace believe that their own representatives have more loyalty to party than constituent concerns.
Speaking of party loyalty, or representatives having interests apart from those that elect them, let us take a look at another of Paine's quotes. "...That the elected might never form to themselves an interest separate from the elector's, prudence will point out the propriety of having elections often: because as the elected might by that means return and mix again with the general body of electors in a few months, their fidelity to the public will be secured by the prudent reflection of not making a rod for themselves...and on this[the frequent interchange] depends the strength of government, and the happiness of the govered."
While I am not a fan of the several month length of appointment to office envisioned by Paine, I think that his general thoughts would lead us to see the evils in the current American system where members of the Legislative branch often serve for decades at a time. Not only would I include those elected, but the professional staffers and administrative class found throughout government that are insulated from the citizenry are all a part of the problem. What we have today is exactly the opposite of what Paine sees as a necessity in forming a strong government where an entire class of "rulers" and their support teams have no idea what the concerns of their constituents are and thus there is no fidelity of cause between elected and elector. Given that we have allowed such a perverted system to become entrenched in Washington D.C., the conclusion from Paine's point of view is that the happiness of the elector has been trampled on and by doing so the strength of the government is negated(Make no mistake, we are not talking brute size and reach of the government as it intrudes into all society, but the true strength of a government brought about when elected and elector are in unison as to the direction of purpose of the nation.)
Paine continues, "the more simply any thing is, the less liable it is to be disordered, and the easier repaired when disordered." Unfortunately for us, we are well past the point of simplicity. In allowing the Federal government to expand beyond the bounds of Constitutional limits, we are left with an incompetent organization that looks to not only rule a country, but determined to flex its muscle around the world. In allowing this growth to occur, it is, as Paine described, disordered and barely even able to accomplish even the most trivial necessities of rule. In its current state of chaos and disorder, repair will be infinitely more difficult and because we, as citizens, have allowed it to happen on our watch, we will end up paying the cost for that process. The only question we have left to ask is, are we in for a renovation or demotlition?
No comments:
Post a Comment