The state of America 250 years in
It is a perfectly normal course for a group of people trying to govern themselves. A new government takes hold. It is then lived, amended, stretched, subverted, outmaneuvered, and redirected over time. Cracks and loopholes are rooted out and exploited. Opportunities are discovered and gamed. And often, really every time, that government evolves into something that doesn't work like we all hoped it should. We don't recognize it. We lose control of it.
We may find it favoring one group over another. One cause over another. Or we find it overburdened with bureaucracy and simply ineffective. We may think there is a deep state or conspiracy at work and we are powerless. Much has been written by many that all claim one reason or another. So, what is the truth? Who or what is to blame?
The truth is that it's nobody's fault. It isn't one person or one group. It isn't one action or inaction. It's more likely that it is a combination of things. It's more likely to be our actions and reactions, however thoughtful and careful at the time. Actions to address the economy, to address changes in our environment, to address changes in our population, to address changes in our society, and to address various inequities. It may also be an accumulation of unintended consequences. And as surely as the sun rises and sets, it happens slowly and insidiously. It just floats along with the natural flow of the industry and behaviors of any group of human beings. Isn't this explanation a more plausible one? Isn't this more likely what has happened? Shouldn't we simply accept that we did this, we made this, we are responsible? All of us. Every single one of us.
Throughout human history many attempts to organize a government were fought for and established, often violently. But as people, society, and environments evolve, these governments also evolve. Eventually they become unwieldy or stagnate or unbalanced in some way. And they no longer adequately meet the needs of the people, society, or the current environment. It is then that a change usually happens and historically that change is often by some form of revolution. That revolution is often a violent one and the disruption it causes is felt for many years as a new government forms. And the inevitable cycle restarts. Today in America, many would probably agree that one cycle is ending and another is about to begin or needs to begin.
In 1774, 56 delegates representing the American colonies and known as the First Continental Congress met to declare our independence from King George III of England. Over the course of the next 15 years, a brutal war was fought against England in order to form a new independent government and ultimately produce and ratify the U.S. Constitution. It specified that a bicameral Congress be established. In 1789, the First U.S. Congress assembled with 26 Senators and 56 Representatives, representing the original 13 colonies.
Today, 250 years later, we still have a bicameral Congress and it has grown to have 100 Senators and 435 Representatives, representing our 50 states. This growth of Congress was due to population increase and land acquisition over that time. But, while the size of Congress changed, there have also been other changes. The number of political parties and their goals has changed considerably over the years. These changes occurred to treat new and various causes in our society, ie slavery, voting rights, national security, worker's rights, abortion rights, economic issues, etc. Today, we have two major political parties more commonly known as the red and blue parties. Their platforms have changed over the years while each hopes to gain more traction with us, the common man. The common man is expected to join one party or the other and then vote for that party's delegates. This, more or less, worked for a long time. While we as individuals tended to stick with one party or the other, we as a country tended to flop back and forth from a predominantly red administration to a predominantly blue one. Arguably, this occasional vacillation resulted in either a needed course correction or, more recently, little change at all.
Unfortunately, this progression over many years finds us today in a state of paralysis. The two parties constantly blame each other for lack of progress while they posture and fight to take sole credit for the little legislation that does result. This woefully ineffective result has angered us and ultimately divided us. What choice does the common man have? What voice is representing him?
Often the party platforms overlapped or the differences were disjoint. For example, a party may be for one cause but against a few other causes important to us. We were left to pick a party with the best fit and hope that party would win. For many people the choice was made because of one polarizing cause. The other important causes had to be deemed secondary. Eventually, as the one polarizing cause became the only cause, the battle between the parties became emotional, heated, angered, one of good vs evil. For example, one for abortion, the other against. One for gun control, the other against. One for more taxes, the other for less. One for less government, the other for more. Thus, being for one party meant you were against, despised, or maybe even hated, the other.
Given what has become a now familiar and simple red vs blue battle, the parties resort to redraw representative districts around its supporters to essentially assure victory while reducing the voices of those of the opposing party. They maneuver to limit the number and composition of voters. They try to restrict the availability of the means to vote. All of this in an attempt to further reduce and control the voice of the common man. And this has all resulted in a Congress that is composed of red and blue representatives who vote strictly following party lines. Elections are no longer about representing everyone in the district. Instead elections are about keeping the party and its incumbent in control. The common man and his individual causes are left only to hope for the best.
In all societies, you will typically have liberal and conservative factions. The liberals desire looking to the future, look ahead, and adopt new ideas. The conservatives desire things the way they are, a bit more cautious about change, and are generally skeptical of new ideas. Both of these factions are necessary to govern any group of independent people. In fact, these factions complement each other. The best result is change that is data driven, forward looking, carefully considered, and serves the people as a whole. One faction in control without the other leads to hate and derision of the faction not in control. This eventually leads to more and more aggression. In recent history we have flip-flopped between the two factions. Some of those closer to the middle tended to compensate or hedge their bets by splitting control of the administration and the Congress. More recently this has not worked very well. Now with one faction in control, the style of government is becoming more aggressive. Respectful discourse and compromise is non-existent. Name calling and finger-pointing is the rule. The goal of the government in control is to win at all costs. The causes of the common man are left blowing in the wind.
We complain of special benefits only conferred to Congressional members. We no longer feel that these representatives have our needs and wants in mind. They have their own health benefits. They vote for their own pay raises. They shut down paychecks for some of us while they go on break and continue to be paid. They spend more time maneuvering for political gain with things like caucuses, gerrymandering, conciliation bills, mega bills, filibusters, hearings, internal investigations, etc. Meanwhile, issues that really matter to the rest of us are sidelined. And, sometimes, both parties even agree that an issue must be addressed but instead they maneuver to gain credit for addressing it while blaming the other for causing the issue. And nothing results.
In recent decades, the rich and powerful people and corporations have realized that a party is a powerful tool, an instrument of control. For them. With the vast amount of money needed to win elections, they can buy access to that tool. And thus access to the representatives who vote. They will use the winning party to advance the causes important to them. Be aware here, that these are people too. People who have merely found an opportunity and are exploiting it. Just human beings doing what human beings do.
It should be noted here that even government paralysis can actually be beneficial to the rich and powerful. In that environment, they are free to manipulate and maneuver the opportunities they find with little government oversight. Think unbounded growth in things like housing, energy, internet, social media, and AI. The rich and powerful are unencumbered to meet their need to remain rich and powerful. Tax breaks and loopholes, less regulation, less oversight, easier access to money. They are not concerned about the cost of groceries, the cost of medical care, the cost of homes and cars. Those things are blips on an expense account. They live in a different world, one of rising salaries, stock incentives, and bonuses. One of private chefs, fancy restaurants and hotels, yachts, multiple vacation homes, etc.
Meanwhile, the common man struggles for better pay, owning a home, a new car, buying groceries, health care, raising our families. We are left to blame one party over the other. We go back and forth. We blame government. We lose interest. We talk of third parties. We talk of term limits. We talk of revolution. It seems we are doomed.
Is it time for American Revolution 2.0?
Dare I say "When in the course of human events", now may be the time for a change. Or has the time chosen us.
George Washington, in his Farewell Address in 1796, stated this warning for the future " However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion. ".
I like to think George Washington and the other Founders saw this eventuality as our government evolved into the future. Of course, they could not have seen the future with any specificity. But they likely knew that people, society, and environment would change. After having just lived through what was a very bloody and costly revolution, I think they knew they needed to provide tools for future generations to rise up and meet unforeseen challenges, even revolution style challenges we feel we may need today. These tools consist of our freedom of speech, our right to assemble, and most importantly our vote. Like our ancestors who sacrificed so much to secure our freedom, it may be time for us to sacrifice our own loyalties for something bigger. We must be willing to put aside our individual interests, our distaste for opposing interests, perhaps even our party affiliations, and be brave enough to become part of that revolution. To achieve the higher goal to benefit all of us.
We can reset our government. We do not need an armed revolution. We have to break the bonds of the parties and the rich and powerful interests that control them. We have to fight for common men to represent common men. We have to unite as common men and believe in this goal. We have to be brave enough to see it through. It will take time but the reset can be felt quickly. And it can grow and build. And real change can result.
Our current situation finds our representation as essentially 2 votes out of 435. We're stuck with a red or blue vote. We really have no representation. We have no voice. In Congress today there is no leadership, no meaningful discourse, no compromise, no action. We are a people with diverse needs who have been forced into 2 camps. We need all 435 representatives who each represent all of their constituents to vote independently on each issue. Only then can we hope to achieve progress toward the greater good.
Some of us say we want term limits. But party loyalties and political redistricting prevent that from happening. We say our representatives are nothing more than party operatives advancing party interests paid for by the rich and powerful. We might want to keep our representative but dislike others. We want others to vote differently. We talk about third parties. We point fingers. We blame others. We don't face the real problems. We don't act together. We remain pawns in a bigger game. Our voice is crushed. And life goes on.
Can we reach toward a higher goal? Can we do it together? Can we set aside any selfish political loyalties and vote with one mind?
Revolution 2.0
Imagine every 2 years a completely new batch of representatives take office. A clean slate of principled, critical thinking, unselfish common men. Not career politicians. Not seasoned bureaucrats. Not party operatives. But common men who see a civic duty as a higher calling. A way to give back. A way to make a difference. Representatives that are eager to weigh each side of an argument and are free to vote their conscience. Without the burdens of reelection or party pressure.
Send emails, make phone calls, and carry signs that say to your favorite party that you will not vote call their bluff. They will get the message soon enough.
The parties will react. They have to remain significant. New candidates will be needed. They will need to be found, encouraged, and vetted. And they will come from every walk of life. Perhaps they are a mayor, a councilman, a businessman, a neighborhood leader, a manager at work, a teacher, etc. And we must also encourage the best of us to step forward and help represent us.
Is it so ridiculous to believe that 435 new representatives can study each bill and make a careful vote? Of course, there will be the occasional self-serving or fringe representative. But he has only a single vote among the rest. Can we not believe that the majority of them will vote for a just and fair result?
As is currently the case, each representative will either carry forward or hand pick a staff of public servants to research, compile, and perform most of the legwork that goes with the job. Law writers will continue to write the laws. But the vote they cast will lie solely inside each of them, unaffected by party affiliation, unaffected by campaign funding groups, unaffected by the need to be reelected. How can this be worse than the representation we have today?
And regarding the Senate, one third of the Senate is elected every two years for 6 years terms. Candidates for this longer commitment may come from the slate of representatives that have already proven leadership and clear thinking skills. Surely some of them may wish to devote a term as a Senator. We should encourage the best of them to continue as Senators.
Is this not exactly what the Founders had in mind when the Constitution was written? In fact, wasn't this how the original Congress was elected? Were they not first time representatives?
Could the Founders have envisioned that powerful parties and wealthy private and corporate entities would hijack our Congress? Could they have foreseen the reduction in the role of the common man? Could they have seen the divided red and blue Congress we have today. Probably not exactly. But they certainly knew human nature. And for that very reason, they provided the tools necessary to the common man. The freedom of speech and assembly, and the right to vote.
So, are we ready for real change? We've been talking about it for years. We've been told that's what we were voting for. But it just has not happened. Are we brave enough to take the steps toward real change? A change we control? Can we believe in this, can we trust the result? Is it such a giant leap, such a risky proposition? Isn't it only a reset? A starting over? Let's elect a group of 435 new representatives to restart our government. Let's shout together and take it to the voting booth. Nobody. Goes. Back.