Today I got mail from the Illinois Republicans urging me to vote here in a few weeks. I reckon I will, since I most usually do, but like so many Americans, I often feel that voting is an exercise in futility. I have several friends who are committed Republicans and some who are committed Democrats, although usually they are more likely to be conservatives and liberals rather than particularly passionate about either party's offerings.
Which is, at least part of, the problem: both parties are full of rich, successful people who want to continue to be rich and successful. Servant leadership, as exemplified by, say, Jesus of Nazareth, is not something we expect to see at either the national or state levels of government. Now, I'm not asking all of my politicians to be Christian (I'm not sure how that would even be possible), but I would like to see one who was willing to sacrifice more than they asked of their constituents. I'd like to see someone who truly cared about us. But, of course, those people become school teachers and social workers. To succeed in politics you have to know how to cultivate power and influence, and wield it to maximize your gain. Governments are foci of power, and people who care tend not to be as experienced at handling power as those in the cut-throat world of commerce.
So maybe it's for the best that, regardless of the party, the same basic type of people always get elected. Perhaps the people I'd like to see running things--kind, caring folk with a vision for sustainability, a heart for all, and a willingness to expend themselves completely in service to the public good--maybe these good people would fail miserably when given all that power. Maybe in a world where Foucault's postmodern analysis of power games rings true, maybe we need our leaders to be Machiavellian.
Maybe that's a bit over the top, too much gloom and doom. Does government have to be evil? Is Lord Acton correct about power and corruption, and is Machiavelli right that we need that? Is there an invisible hand that guides politics like the one Adam Smith posits for capitalism? Do we trust the system to balance self-interest with the greater good? What, exactly, is "the greater good" and is right to expect government to help actualize it (heck, is it even a possibility, or just so much pixie dust in my eyes as the clock approaches midnight?)
Enough for now. Most of you are more politically savvy than me, so help me out here already!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Ah, politics... one of my friends recently wrote on the topic: http://dogpatch5s.livejournal.com/73359.html?mode=reply
Okay, let's try this link: http://dogpatch5s.livejournal.com/73359.html
As for my own response, it bothers me when people are die hard Republicans or Democrats, etc. no matter the candidate. Vote for the person you feel will best represent.
The problem is that usually I am fairly certain neither candidate can represent me at all (the higher up the scale you go, the worse it gets. Local politics can sometimes represent, but rarely state and never federal!)
Yeah, I know.
Tell me about it!
But, and here's the truly horrible thing, I can't think of a better system than this inherently flawed mess we've got (of course, I can't think of a lot of things, which explains the lack of Nobel prizes in my office...)
My personal belief is that Government is and of itself benign in nature. It simply is in whatever form it may exist.
I think there is potential for good or bad in any form of government we might select, from Anarchism through Theocracy. It all boils down to what kind of person(s) we might have in power.
History would suggest that, indeed, power does corrupt which is why most governments that would fall under a category of an Autocracy fail. But, even when you have a Republic such as we have (rule of law) there is still the tendency to have corrupt people in power. Is this the fault of the Government (meaning the institution)? NO… This is the fault of the people in general who place these people into a position of power for not doing their homework, or not taking an interest.
Our Founding Fathers were very aware of the problems that might arise should our society ever breed a “Political Class,” (i.e. Career Politician). They were in the hopes this would never happen, as they had styled our political system in such a manner as to only the more educated, the more responsible could make the selections of who would be sent to represent the people. But, once again their original intent was perverted, and now all anyone has to do is live till their eighteenth birthday, and the magic wand is waved, and they can vote. I make no apologies when I say… The majority of our populous is simply too ignorant to be allowed to cast a vote. We no longer educate anyone on civics, and it shows election after election after election…
One other problem that the Founding Fathers didn’t expect… A two party system. They COUNTED on the fact that people would be working together for the greater good. They knew that small factions and hold out groups would never be able to move the country forward without working together. BUT… It didn’t work out like that and now we have a two party system and gridlock.
Is there an answer? I mean, aside from a benevolent dictatorship? That all depends upon the people… Right up to the time where the Islamic Fundamentalists win and we find ourselves living in a Mullahcracy…
Good points, Morgan, but you have to realize that, in one sense, there's no such things as "governments" and "laws"... there are just systems of words and thoughts that people use to wield power. Now, yes, laws exist, but they are made by, interpreted by, and walked all over by, the people whom they give power to. People are, as my friend John Calvin would say, fallen. Our system may not suck, but once you plug people into it, it sucks like an Islamic potentate on a spice-laden hookah...
Post a Comment