I think there is something that people miss if they think that polls are the only thing our representatives in congress should attend to:
1. Polls at a national level do little to inform us about what a given representative's constituents think of his or her performance. We have to remember who is likely to be sampled in such polls and where the concentration might reside. This notion certainly emerges from discussions of gerrymandering - if a district has been constructed in such a way as to include only favorable constituents, then voting in a way that is inconsistent with their views is not only political suicide - it is not representative. The idea that a representative from rural Kansas should vote in a manner that reflects 74% of the general US population seems a bit misplaced and far-fetched. It suggests that their allegiance should be to the national party and not to their constituents. To whom does the phrase "Will of the people" refer?
2. Perhaps there are issues of ideology involved in addition to representation. To point to polls and say "How can you vote this way, look what others think?" is akin to saying "A vast majority of the world is Islamic, so how can you possibly continue to be a Christian?" People believe what they believe. If a representative thinks that Obamacare is wrong, his ideology is opposed to it (in addition to his own constituency) then is he supposed to ignore that? Again this goes back to the (potentially mistaken) idea that the effects of such opposition at the national level are more important than local concerns and ideology. So the Joe Scarborough's of the world will say such opposition will mean defeat at the national level for years to come. Perhaps - but some would say that prostituting one's values or beliefs so as to win control of dysfunctional government is not a suitable trade-off.
Again, as an independent, I think there is more than enough blame to go around in this situation. Clearly the GOP - the extent there IS a GOP any longer - is to blame for some of this - certainly one can say they are the reason things are shut down. Others may say they are sticking to their ideology.
On the other hand, as an independent who voted for Obama, one of the more discomforting things that has happened as a result of this shutdown has been the realization (via obvious demonstration) that the Obama administration is not more above politicizing government than was the Bush administration. This attitude (along with attempts to limit my RKBA) was not what I voted for.
There has been absolutely no need - beyond politics - to shut down the various national parks, monuments and memorials that we have heard about. This is especially true in cases where it is obvious that it has taken more resources to shut down areas than it usually takes to maintain them.
Such misbehavior smacks of several unsavory characteristics. First, and most harmless, it is petulant - it is a whining crying child stomping his feet, a temper-tantrum, an attempt to find ways to enhance the pain of the shut down in areas that could foment discontent and then blame it on others. Yes, others may well be "to blame"; but enhancing the pain to make that point is childish and manipulative. Second, and much worse, it gives an impression of despotism, it fulfills images that many share (and many discount) of a government ready and willing to assert dictatorial and even armed control over citizens, to over-reach in it claims of control via use of force. As the saying goes - "Is it paranoia if they really are after you?" Closing monuments and memorials to the people whose suffering they are honoring, who pay for them, to those who have no role in the ongoing tantrums and shenanigans, is something imperial rulers do ("Let them eat cake!").
It is not the government's role to close our public lands to the public - we entrust its management to them, not its control. Sadly (or perhaps presciently) those who ask questions about stories of DHS hoarding ammunition (and are berated for it) get partial answers from stories of armed agents holding vacationers in a national park; "No, you are not allowed to see a natural geyser that has been doing its thing for hundreds or thousands of years, because your government says so".
In either case - temper tantrum or a show of imperial force - both are ways to assert control, either by the immature or the egotistical, the message is not a good one. It speaks plainly of "This is not yours, it is mine and we control it". The liberal media may not like that conservative politicians take advantage of this for their own purposes (see Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz and others); but the administration doing likewise is also problematic and concerning.
There are no cooler heads to prevail.
No comments:
Post a Comment