And the Candidate Promises Changes

Again.

It seems that every year at least one candidate for office tries to set themselves apart as the agent for change.  At the town level, city, county, state, and especially Washington 'Inside the beltway' DC.

I cringe at the promise every time for a number of reasons.    

First, because the government we have is the exact government we, the voters, have let evolve.  Since they work for us, it is we who have allowed all politicians to do what they do and in the manner that they do it.  The glorious acts and the warts.  The Constitution was created with endemic flexibility to mirror the needs of the governed.  The Amendment process allows for doctrine changes.  The fact that our elected officials have to be reelected after a certain number of years allows for interim interpretative adjustments.  Through both these sculpting mechanisms we have produced the best government on Earth, even though we seem to love to hate it.  Or perhaps we only hate its warts.

Second, I simply don't believe them.  I don't believe that any of them adopt this strategy for any other reason except that it resonates to those who focus on the warts.  It is an easier sell if you can appeal to the buyers' fears of loss.  I might be less cynical if ever an agent for change would actually, clearly say what it is that they will change, when they will change it, and why that change will be better than what we have now.

Finally, I cringe because I believe that they all know that no single elected official has the power to change that which 230-something years of political evolution has wrought.  Our government was founded on the principle of separation of powers.  That separation still exists.  So as much as any politician can say that he or she will change the status quo, his or her ability to follow through is limited by the ultimate power of the Constitution of the community known as the United States of America.  To suggest that any elected official has an existence beyond the laws and the voters who rule this land is to spit in the eye of democracy.  This is definitely NOT a change I want.

 

So to change the activities inside the Beltway in DC we, the voters, would need to change the community there by either infusing new practices by the current members or by changing the members en masse.

To change the current members themselves we would need to inundate their community with a lot of electees with a real inspiration and dedication to business as unusual.  People who would have skin thick enough to ignore the patronage, or bribes, that allow so few a greater influence than the general population.  we would need a majority of such-minded individuals in the House, a two-thirds advantage in the Senate, conspicuous representation on the Supreme Court, and the President himself would need to share these priorities.

Rather than try to change the current members, we stand a more realistic outcome by trying to influence new practices that will redirect their focus. - i.e. No Earmarks.  A strictly enforced ban on lobbyists' gifts and donations.  Campaign Finance reform.  An empowered voter watchdog process that questions and reports on the law making process as it is processing. An entity that would remind the world on a daily basis that THEY work for US.