Weighing In on the Shutdown

I’m even more disgusted than ever with the irresponsibility of Congress, the House of Representatives and the Senate, Republicans and Democrats. Both sides would like to paint this a struggle between right and wrong, conservatism and liberalism, progress and chaos. I submit that it’s mostly a struggle between arrogant egos and a desire for power that ignores the needs of anyone who might disagree, and, if you read the results of the 2012 elections, MOST OF THE COUNTRY. It’s playing chicken with unwilling proxies driving the cars.

I’ve written before on Health Care Reform, the views of the Founding Fathers, and various and sundry political topics. That being said, I don’t claim any unique perspective. What we have here is a failure to compromise combined with misplaced priorities that put power before people.

I understand that if you are convinced you are right, you will also likely be certain that you would be violating your core beliefs by compromising. That’s fine if you represent only yourself, perhaps even your family or your private organization. In all of those cases, your impact is limited. Members of Congress, however, are tasked with representing ALL their constituents, voluntarily accepting the responsibility to help govern the ENTIRE country. They may directly represent only a part of the country, perhaps even a state, but they are UNITED STATES Representatives and Senators. 

I also understand their claim that they were elected by their constituents based on certain promises they made in their election campaigns. I understand that they believe they must fulfill those promises in order to retain their jobs. None, however, were elected by a unanimous vote (even in a landslide victory, at least 2 out of every 5 people voted for the losing side). Question: Shouldn’t serving ALL their constituents take priority over retaining the powers, perks, and pay of their position? Obviously not, since those continue unabated during the shutdown; no sacrifices for THEM!

Here’s the inconsistency in that line of thinking that sticks out like the first zit on a teenager. Did we not have an election in 2008 in which then-candidate Obama promised universal health care and coverage? Was he not elected by a sizable majority? Was it a big surprise that this became the priority of his administration? Didn’t what passed Congress look and sound a lot like what he promised? Was there not ANOTHER election in 2012 which, in essence, served as a referendum on “Obamacare”? Did he not win again AND did not his party increase their seats in both the House AND the Senate? Didn’t the United States Supreme Court, with its clear Republican majority, affirm the Constitutionality of the act? Doesn’t logic (yes, yes, I know, logic and the real world often have no connection, sad to say) suggest, if not downright insist, that the majority of the country wants to at least try health care reform?

Those who are so locked in to what THEY believe, nay, know, is right for everyone, even those who disagree with their position, are willing to sabotage our already fragile economic recovery by throwing a political tantrum until they get EVERYTHING they want regardless of the consequences and regardless of the fact that THEY REPRESENT A MINORITY VIEW. These are the same people who insist they are protecting the vision of the Founding Fathers, despite the fact the ONLY thing the founders agreed upon was the need to compromise for the sake of the country. The founding fathers understood the role of the minority; I don’t think these clowns have a clue. That conservatives now oppose their own concept (the individual mandate idea came out of that very conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, and was the foundation for the Romney plan in Massachusetts) speaks volumes.

Incidentally, and this won’t convince a single Obama-hater, until Congress sends him something (which would, of course, require either a compromise or a so far non-existent viable alternative to the despised ACA), his threats of a veto are just that. I don’t think he’s had a bona fide chance to be an effective leader; his efforts have been sabotaged from Day 1 by the avowed efforts of the “loyal opposition” to have him fail,  but neither would I argue that he has particularly distinguished himself in that regard. This mess, however,  is on Congress, at least until it sends him a bill. 

These ODD-people (that’s Oppositional Defiant Disorder, although I’d suggest odd also works for more than a few of them) are anti-democracy and anti-republic, supporting the will of the people, but only if that will meshes exactly with their (antediluvian, IMO) notions. Their position is saying, in essence, “The voters (and the Supreme Court) were too stupid to understand what they were voting on, so we need to abrogate their electoral decision in favor of ours, because we know what’s best.” That is NOT democracy, that is NOT republicanism; that’s a prelude to Facism.