Response to "545 People"

I wrote this in response to en e-mail received regarding the 545 elected federal officials who hold power in this country and how their poor decisions have gotten us into this mess (435 Representatives in the House, 100 in the Senate, 9 Supreme Court Justices (I'm aware they are not elected), and the President (I realize the VP is also elected. I didn't write the original e-mail)). Basically, the e-mail I received outlines how no one forces politicians to listen to lobbyists or to each other and that they each have the ability to make their own decisions. The e-mail will be reproduced in its entirety in a second post. These are my thoughts.

Not trying to argue, but the unfortunate fact is that government and politics are, in some respects, far more complicated than that. I agree with the general notion. Everyone has a choice to do what is right, and far too many of them don't choose correctly (especially with lobbyists and the like). And those poor choices have gotten this country into the mess we are in now. But much like offices, schools, social groups and everything else that have "games" that are played, often referred to as "office politics" and such, politics is a game in and of itself. This is terrifying, especially considering the last eight years, when the game has been run by people who did not make the right choices). This game can also be beneficial. The problem with there being people running the game is that no one is prefect and every person is inherently fallible. This means that mistakes are made when running the game. And unfortunately, everyone, even those not playing the game, have to pay for those mistakes.

So when someone, who does not make the correct choices, at any level of frequency, is running the game, he or she will wield their power and influence over the game to paint the opposition in a negative light to the voting public. And since we, the voting public, have the power to unseat any elected official that we want (in theory), it is in the best interest of said opponent of the "powerful one(s)" to agree rather than be painted in a negative light to their constituents (see entire Bush Presidency, more specifically:  march to war in Iraq, domestic spying, torture, Guantanamo Bay, Extraordinary Rendition, fear-mongering, etc...). And while we may like to think that "our guy" or "our girl" can be trusted to make the correct decision no matter what, there are very few who actually have the, as the e-mail so eloquently put it, gall, to make that decision in the face of an angry public that does not support that choice (see Vermont's legalization of civil unions).

This brings into the mix the whole ideology of an elected official:  Does the public elect the official to always follow the desires of the majority of the public he or she represents; or does the public elect an official trusting that they have the fortitude and knowledge to make the most correct decision regardless of what the public wants? Neither is necessarily wrong and neither philosophy is inherently wrong.

The problems form this arise when, in the first ideology, the public desires something that is actually not in their best interest (Iraq War). The problems also arise when, in the second ideology, the trusted official makes a decision he or she makes believes to be correct, but is actually not in the best interest of the citizenry (Iraq War).

This of course, opens the door to another inherent problem with representing the interests of only a certain area, rather than the public as a whole. A representative from Texas whose district thrives on oil revenues may not want to pass new environmental protections that will benefit the health of the entire citizenry of the east coast. While competition does typically breed excellence, this sort of competition creates local-interest only politicking. One side claims that the other is trying to destroy it. Texas says the east coast is trying to ruin the domestic oil business by forcing retro-fitting and emission controls that will cut into profits. The east coast is saying that Texas and domestic oil don't care about the health and livelihood of the fellow citizens of this country. Typically this sort of politicking results in a stalemate, a bill that no one ends up happy with, or depending on who controls Congress and the White House, one side getting what they want and the other side getting hung out to dry. This is the political system we have set up. 

As an aside, this is how nations end up withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol to reduce pollution in step with the rest of the industrialized nations because the third-world countries that are developing into industrial powers (and stealing all those American jobs) don't have the same guidelines. Protectionism at its best. On this issue, America is trying to keep the Titanic from sinking by grabbing on to one side of the hull and treading water. There's nothing this country can do to stop or slow globalization (except ruin the entire global financial systems, which is what we just did...U-S-A!!!). But I digress.

I guess what I am saying is that on one hand, I'm all for going back to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and Amendments and really examining hardcore what is relevant today and what needs to be changed. The people in power have managed to send this country spinning down the toilet, and it seems that right now we're so close to being down the drain completely there isn't a whole lot we can do to save ourselves. On the other hand, everything, everything, everything is ALWAYS more complicated than one things it is. Such as life, I suppose. Please share this with people if you would like. Or don't. Whatever.

As a side note, if America really wanted to get those manufacturing jobs back, it has to do two things:

1) Send union officials from this country to these other regions (Latin America, Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe, Indonesia, etc...) and have them establish international worker unions so they can organize and demand higher wages and benefits to the point that moving manufacturing bases to foreign countries is no longer cost-effective;

2) Stop using CIA operatives to assassinate local organizers in those regions who are trying to do exactly that, organize unions.

Why would our government, so righteous in trying to keep jobs in America, would be okay with paramilitary units, shady associates of American businesses and CIA operatives (not agents, there is a difference) assassinating union organizers in other countries which, although it may only do a small amount, might bring manufacturing jobs back to America?

1) Businesses that manufacture overseas save ocean-loads of money because they don't have to pay your higher wages and don't have to pay for your expensive benefits. This increases their profit margins, which increases their stock value, which makes a whole lot of rich people richer;

2) Those same businesses and rich people have friends in high places, like in lobbyist offices or as elected officials. And since they also have money, they can make larger donations than you can to campaigns. Without that money, most politicians can't afford to run for office not making excuses, but these are hard decisions for anyone to make);

3) Businesses that save money on manufacturing can charge less money for their products than companies that manufacture in America that pay your higher salaries and expensive benefits. This increased competition drives companies that still have manufacturing bases in America to seek locations outside of America to compete. Businesses that charge less money, but sell more product and have lower expenses, will make higher profits, and their stock value will go up, and a whole lot of rich people will get richer.

But again, I digress.