Tea for Two

Let’s talk about what’s going on across America. Specifically, let’s talk about what seems to be confusing and confounding the politicians, pundits, and pollsters: The so-called Tea Party Movement. In Washington, D.C., and elsewhere, theories abound: The Tea Partiers are a Republican outfit, organized by FOX News to stir up dissent and to obstruct “the People’s business” of getting nationalized healthcare passed by Congress; or else they are called Tea Baggers (with the inevitable knowing smirk), labeled as a fringe group, a trifle merely to be dismissed by serious political observers. And there are those who are certain that this “rabble” will, like the cry-babies they are imagined to be, eventually fall asleep and become quiet.

I do not believe that any single one of these assumptions is correct, and I think that the so-called “experts” are not only wrong but are missing the point entirely. Not only that, but the movements themselves may be blinded by their own ambitions. There is a solution, but first let’s look at the problem:

In 1994, the Republican Party took Control of Congress after about 40 years in the political wilderness. They held a majority, or at least a plurality, until 2006, when several scandals, near scandals, and allegations of wrongdoing were brought to light. There was the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, Tom Delay was accused of violating campaign finance laws, Duke Cunningham was convicted of bribery, fraud and tax evasion, Mark Foley was accused of soliciting former congressional pages, and Scooter Libby took the fall for supposedly “outing” CIA agent Valerie Plame.

In 2006, the Democratic leadership crowed about the “culture of corruption” that was apparently fostered by the Republican majority in Congress. This drumbeat, amplified in the media echo chamber, led to Democratic victories in the 2006 elections, when Democrats took control of the House and the Senate. The new House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, vowed that the Democrats were going to have the “most open, most honest, and most ethical Congress in history.” What’s happened since then?

Representative William J. Jefferson, a Louisiana Democrat, was suspected by the FBI of bribery. They found $90,000 in his freezer and he was eventually convicted on 11 of 16 corruption charges. In New York, Elliot Spitzer, the Democratic Governor who made his name as a hard-charging, tough-as-nails New York Attorney General, resigned as a result of a prostitution scandal. David Paterson, Spitzer’s successor as Governor of New York, is currently being investigated for witness tampering, bid irregularities and charges that he lied under oath in regard to trying to use his position as Governor to get free World Series tickets from the New York Yankees. The House Ethics Committee is apparently investigating Charlie Rangel on accusations of tax fraud, using Congressional stationery to solicit donations for a public institute to be named after him, the Diageo Rum bailout, and other instances of influence peddling. Rep. Eric Massa, also of New York, is facing allegations of sexual harassment by a male staffer. In Connecticut, Democratic Senator Chris Dodd faced an Ethics Committee inquiry into “sweetheart loans” he received as a “friend of Angelo (Mozilo),” the CEO of Countrywide Financial, which includes what appears to be a staggering discount on a property purchased in Ireland. Similar allegations were leveled against North Dakota Democrat Kent Conrad. In 2008, despite questionable associations with disreputable characters such as Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, William Ayers, and ACORN (just to name a few), and having spent less than 180 days as the junior Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama was elected President of the United States. The Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, apparently tried to sell Obama’s lightly-used Senate seat to the highest bidder. He was impeached and removed from office.

As President, Mr. Obama promised to set a new ethical standard for American politics. He didn’t say that it would be a better or a higher standard, just that it would be a new standard, which quickly became apparent and hasn’t slowed down since he began naming Cabinet nominees from the “Office of the President-Elect.” Timothy Geithner, Tom Daschle, Ron Kirk, Nancy Killefer and Hilda Solis were all tainted by tax problems (during which Republican Rep. Eric Cantor quipped, “it’s easy for [Democrats] to sit here and advocate higher taxes because - you know what? - they don’t pay them.”). In order to push through the President’s plan to nationalize the nation’s healthcare system, in spite of being opposed by a vast majority of Americans, accommodations (read: “bribes”) were made to Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. Mr. Nelson’s $100,000,000 "Cornhusker Kickback" essentially makes the federal government responsible for all future Medicaid costs for all Nebraskans, forever. In Ms. Landrieu’s case, her “Louisiana Purchase” entails what amounts to a $300,000,000 Medicaid “boost” for her state. In both cases, the costs will be covered by the other 48 states.

In other news, former vice-presidential nominee and presidential candidate John Edwards has finally admitted fathering a child with a former campaign employee. The affair took place as Mr. Edwards’ wife battled cancer. As revelations of scientific misconduct surround the whole “man-made global warming” debacle, Al Gore, who used his political cache to cash in on the man-made hysteria, is looking more and more like a snake-oil salesman. And Nancy Pelosi? Well, when she isn’t flying family and friends back and forth between Washington, D.C. and San Francisco, or steering legislation that is favorable to her husband’s interests as a major shareholder in Starkist, she is presumably still working on that whole “most open, most honest, and most ethical Congress in history” thing. I’ll bet she wishes she had said they would “set a new standard” for openness, honesty and ethics, instead.

I could go on all day, but if you want more detail on the real “culture of corruption,” I suggest you read Donkey Con, a 2006 book written by Lynn Vincent and Robert Stacy McCain. In it, the authors point out that "the Democratic Party has a 200-year history of urban corruption, treason and subversion, mob control, alliance with corrupt unions, and aiding and abetting criminals that has no parallel in the GOP.”

True or not – and I happen to know that it is true; the authors back up their assertions with over 600 end notes – it doesn’t really help us to address the essential problem that is inherent in our political system. The truth is, we are talking about human beings, and no one is perfect, right? Mistakes will be made – but how can we minimize them?

I think we may be going about this whole thing the wrong way: Instead of asking or expecting our representatives in Washington to be perfect little angels while surrounded by that special sort of corruption that grows up around special interests, we (The People) must simply take care to ensure that they aren’t exposed to it for very long. That’s right: I’m talking about limiting their time in Washington by taking an anti-incumbent position during every election.

Hear me out.

What if we moved back toward the system of self-government as imagined by the Founding Fathers set forth in the Constitution? What if we sent farmers, plumbers and clerks to represent us instead of lawyers and career politicians? What if we simply took turns, and sent a new representative to Washington every election cycle? What is the upside? What is the downside?

For starters, it would undoubtedly get more Americans engaged in the political process. Today’s elections have devolved to the point where we, as a nation, are more concerned with what a candidate looks like, or well he or she speaks, than the content of their character. It’s become American Idolized. What if there were good, solid, potential candidates on every block?

As for the way Congress operates, have you ever wondered why so many laws are on the books? Do we really need all of that legislation? Perhaps we should also consider limiting the amount of time our representatives actually spend in Washington. Let them meet only in June, July, and August. If they have only 90 days to conduct business, doesn’t it stand to reason that they would have to prioritize, and work on only the most important legislation? The rest of the time they will be in their local office, meeting with their constituents and hearing their concerns.

If we send everyday people to Washington, and for only a short time, a one-time only thing, then we needn’t worry about funding elaborate retirement plans for them. As citizen-legislators, they go, they legislate, and when they are done serving, they come home and return to their job or their career. The same would hold true for their staff. Would a one-term representative, in town for just three months, need a staff of thirty people to get the job done? Think of all the perks that would be reduced or eliminated simply as a matter of their limited time in Washington. Now, imagine the cost savings to the American taxpayer.

Of course, the power of K-Street lobbyists would shrink. Their business model would certainly have to be re-thought. How do you influence someone who has come to Washington on a short-term mission to serve their communities back home? They have no re-election to worry about, no campaign chest to fill. But that can cut both ways, nes pas? Again, this is why we must concern ourselves with character when selecting our representatives.

What would this mean to the National Committees, both Republican and Democratic? Would their power and influence be diminished as well? My guess is that they probably would, and other groups and movements would find a larger voice in the political process. The will of individual communities would probably begin to take precedence over the desires of the current (for all intents and purposes) two-party system.

As I said, I don’t think that the true message that is inherent in the current dissatisfaction being demonstrated by disaffected Americans is being heard. I think that the entrenched political machines are, instead, ignoring the larger Truth of what has been happening. We are talking about bringing some fundamental changes to our system of self-rule and self-government. We are talking about the end of “party lines” and of the one-size-fits-all mentality endemic to the current two-party system. We are talking about the possibility of taking back our government, reforming and reformulating it to reflect the common sense needs of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Next week, I will post a platform to address those needs. It isn’t meant to be an entirely comprehensive, all-inclusive game plan, but merely to serve as a starting point for discussion. It is a Constitution-based "declaration," of sorts, designed to find common ground among Americans who think and believe that we can and should have a far better government than we have. I look forward to reading your comments.