A good look at our political parties and platforms shows tenancies that we should be aware of. The main of which is the place for liberal and conservative labels. Younger folks are often of the misconception of the synonymity of Republican and Conservative, of Democrat and Liberal. This can give people funny ideas that the intent of conservatives is to conserve national resource, or that liberal platforms are for the liberty of the common folks.
The fact is there have been long portions of history in which Republican ideas were considered liberal and Democrats were the conservatives. Is that because their platforms used to be different? Well, kinda - platforms have always changed, but the reason for the adjective change for the parties is because conservative and liberal describe the political stance in comparison to the status quo. Conservatives will advocate the conservation of traditional methods, the preservation of the status quo. Liberals apply liberty to possible variation in current politics, advocating a change in the status quo. The Democrat dominance of the presidency for most of the 20th century, for example, did not want any liberty to change the system they had cultivated. Democrats fought hard to conserve the traditions they had applied to government.
In truth, liberals rarely hold governments. Liberal parties are often a minority and when they aren't, their rebellious tenancy fractures their numbers between many very different alternative viewpoints as to how the government should be changed. Conservatives, 9 times out of 10, more accurately represents the traditional thought and direction of the American people.
However, when the traditional paradigm continually fails to handle national or world situations, liberal ideas gain momentum. Some liberal movements attempt to work within the traditional party, attempting to salve the problems with tweeks and maintainence and save the system currently in use. Other liberal factions take advantage of the benefits of a fresh start, advocating scrapping larger elements of the current methods. The more severe the problems, the larger the apparent deficits in governmental ability to cope, the stronger the support for larger form replacement of the status quo.
If the populous has truly given up on current methodologies and the torch is passed on to a wildly different government, then for one moment the liberals are in control.
Then, just as suddenly, they become the new conservatives, preserving the new status quo.
Who knows? In 16 or so years, maybe the liberals will be clamoring for lower taxes for the wealthy, reduced socialization of health care and more money put into the military. Rush Limbaugh would have to change his bumper stickers to "Limbaugh is what's Left".
Friday, April 25, 2008
Friday, March 28, 2008
Mandates of Power
McCain is going to keep us in Iraq for 100 years. McCain will effect a market solution for our market problems. Clinton will force everyone to pay for mandatory healthcare. Clinton will make civil unions federally protected institutions. Obama will raise taxes to astronomical rates. Obama will begin to get our troops out of Iraq as soon as he takes office.
These aren't exact statements out of the press or statements by the candidates, but they are all inferred and they are often the things we think as we compare these hopeful competitors, these executors presumptive. Yet, these voluminous floating statements - hopes and fears both - fly in the theoretical face of the politically scientific definitions of "executive". These ideas, the fears and hopes above stated are quite different than any theorist would put in the lap of any president, chancellor or prime minister. For the sake of novelty, differentiation and fun, these actions will be referred to as "presi-slative".
Democracy is a golden, shiny word we love to throw around in the western world, especially America. Voice of the People, we understand it to be and it is the heartstone of liberty. And the president is democracy's champion. Ironic that our president is the executive head of a federal republic and not a democracy. Not even directly elected by the Voice of the People, but elected by delegates, whose name we don't know, delegated loosely dependant on population and poll results. Not even, even supposed to be much of a decision making authority, just an executor of the will of congress.
It could be postulated that the bastion of democracy in our huge complicated system would be our legislature - directly elected representatives, half based on population, half based on region, who write and vote on our laws. And boy do we hate them - a quagmire of bribed, false, rich politician who write laws with pens loaned by their campaign financiers. We vote for them, when we think of it, and think of them as a necessary evil, then turn our thoughts back to the guy (or gal) who is gonna get it all done, the president. Montesquieu, let us be sure, is rolling over in his grave.
The point of the executive is that a separate (and lesser) authority executes the will of the "the people" (the representatives in congress). The "people" tell the president what they want done - laws, foreign policy and such - and the president figures out a way to get it done. To put it in a technical way, congress legislates bills and the president executes the legislation to the best of his or her ability and provision. Sometimes, legislators push a bill through into law that is either impossible or contrary to another law. That is where the executive branch is supposed to check the power of congress with presidential veto and advice on how to make the laws work better. Then the judiciary watches the president to make sure he or she is executing the laws as they were written.
At least that is how it is supposed to work.
What would happen to that system if the country selected executive candidates not based on faith to the will of the people but on their ability to initiate action, make powerful decisions and to take matters into their own hands. Their ability to push legislation into and through congress and their strategies to stack the judicial branch with their own people - you know - to streamline the process. What if the country chose to instate a Presi-slature?
Well, we would see tell-tale signs, wouldn't we? We would see a congress voting to give the executive "emergency powers" with vague time limits and foggy goals. You would see the executive being the Head of State, the symbol of the power of the country, the guy or gal other countries barter with to negotiate trade, and alliance (instead of a legislative head, like the Speaker of the House). We would hear more about presidential legislative proposals than about legislative proposals that originated in the House or Senate. We would see included in executive authority provisions for situational authority that would at the same time great and subject to interpretation (for example, authority to wage war without approval for a period of time). Finally, one of the most indicative signs of the institution of a Presi-slature would be an executive election campaigned on ideas of legislating change to the system. Otherwise interviews of presidential candidates might sound something like this:
"If you are elected president, what will be your first action?"
"Whatever congress tells me to do."
"Good boy."
It should not be derived from this article that a "Presi-slature" would be evil or even undesirable - that would be for the country to decide, but with the possible jeopardy of the liberty and voice of the people that we are so proud of, let's make sure we conscious of what we are actually voting for.
These aren't exact statements out of the press or statements by the candidates, but they are all inferred and they are often the things we think as we compare these hopeful competitors, these executors presumptive. Yet, these voluminous floating statements - hopes and fears both - fly in the theoretical face of the politically scientific definitions of "executive". These ideas, the fears and hopes above stated are quite different than any theorist would put in the lap of any president, chancellor or prime minister. For the sake of novelty, differentiation and fun, these actions will be referred to as "presi-slative".
Democracy is a golden, shiny word we love to throw around in the western world, especially America. Voice of the People, we understand it to be and it is the heartstone of liberty. And the president is democracy's champion. Ironic that our president is the executive head of a federal republic and not a democracy. Not even directly elected by the Voice of the People, but elected by delegates, whose name we don't know, delegated loosely dependant on population and poll results. Not even, even supposed to be much of a decision making authority, just an executor of the will of congress.
It could be postulated that the bastion of democracy in our huge complicated system would be our legislature - directly elected representatives, half based on population, half based on region, who write and vote on our laws. And boy do we hate them - a quagmire of bribed, false, rich politician who write laws with pens loaned by their campaign financiers. We vote for them, when we think of it, and think of them as a necessary evil, then turn our thoughts back to the guy (or gal) who is gonna get it all done, the president. Montesquieu, let us be sure, is rolling over in his grave.
The point of the executive is that a separate (and lesser) authority executes the will of the "the people" (the representatives in congress). The "people" tell the president what they want done - laws, foreign policy and such - and the president figures out a way to get it done. To put it in a technical way, congress legislates bills and the president executes the legislation to the best of his or her ability and provision. Sometimes, legislators push a bill through into law that is either impossible or contrary to another law. That is where the executive branch is supposed to check the power of congress with presidential veto and advice on how to make the laws work better. Then the judiciary watches the president to make sure he or she is executing the laws as they were written.
At least that is how it is supposed to work.
What would happen to that system if the country selected executive candidates not based on faith to the will of the people but on their ability to initiate action, make powerful decisions and to take matters into their own hands. Their ability to push legislation into and through congress and their strategies to stack the judicial branch with their own people - you know - to streamline the process. What if the country chose to instate a Presi-slature?
Well, we would see tell-tale signs, wouldn't we? We would see a congress voting to give the executive "emergency powers" with vague time limits and foggy goals. You would see the executive being the Head of State, the symbol of the power of the country, the guy or gal other countries barter with to negotiate trade, and alliance (instead of a legislative head, like the Speaker of the House). We would hear more about presidential legislative proposals than about legislative proposals that originated in the House or Senate. We would see included in executive authority provisions for situational authority that would at the same time great and subject to interpretation (for example, authority to wage war without approval for a period of time). Finally, one of the most indicative signs of the institution of a Presi-slature would be an executive election campaigned on ideas of legislating change to the system. Otherwise interviews of presidential candidates might sound something like this:
"If you are elected president, what will be your first action?"
"Whatever congress tells me to do."
"Good boy."
It should not be derived from this article that a "Presi-slature" would be evil or even undesirable - that would be for the country to decide, but with the possible jeopardy of the liberty and voice of the people that we are so proud of, let's make sure we conscious of what we are actually voting for.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Act Locally
Nelda Wells Spears got the Democratic Party nod for her campaign and will go head to head with Republican Don Zimmerman. Nelda Wells Spears...I've heard that name before, I thought. Was she running for the House? The Senate?
Then, I remembered. I talked to her when I needed to get my car registration switched over from Nebraska to Texas. She worked in a cubicle at the Travis County Tax Assessor's office, over on Airport Blvd., over on the east side of the street. You know, just south of 2222. She was pretty nice, took care of me pretty well. I guess she is the Tax Assessor and Marty Toohey of the Austin American Statesman wrote a little article about her. Good on her!
Karen Huber won the Democrat race for Travis County Commissioner and will face off with Republican incumbant Gerald Daugherty in November, according to Statesman staff writer Katie Humphrey. I might have seen their plastic campaign signs up on a couple of lawns. Who knows. I can't think of a reason why I'd remember them.
Rhonda Hurley is winning in the race for a judge seat in the 98th judicial district, Scott Ozmun for the 353rd district, Jim Coronado for the 427th and Carlos H. Barrera for a seat at County Court-at-Law No. 8. We vote for judges? I thought they were appointed by, uh...the president?
If this stuff confuses me - and it does! - just imagine how uninterested an average population, that thinks that Abraham Lincoln was our first president, is. I mean, Tax Assessor-Collector - isn't that an official of Ancient Rome? County Commissioner, the police answer to them don't they? Isn't it abbreviated "the Commish?" And how many judges do we have anyway? Who cares if we vote for one of them - it's not like it's the Supreme Court.
That is how a lot of people feel about all those little County/Municipal and even State elected officials - who cares? They don't really have that much power - it seems much more important for us to to keep up with who is winning the presidential and congressional elections.
Voting for the president and the national legislature, more than we give it credit, is a more abstract action that will have as much effect on citizens on countries abroad as it does its citizens. Most of the our federal monies go to military operations and administration of that self-same federal government. We vote for these people because of how they will regulate taxes, how they will support the environment, how they will handle crime, how they will change the election process. Did you know that a lot of the method of execution of our polls and elections are handled by Ms. Nelda Wells Spears, who works in a little cubicle in a squat khaki building with bad parking on Airport Blvd? The County Commissioner is the most important legal body in between aggressive developers and permission to cut down forested parks for new subdivisions? Not to mention that anybody who has stood before a judge can tell you how much power those little municipal justices have over our society's tactics against crime and its expressive stance on civil rights. Hardly any of the little county trials that land someone in prison or in rehabilitation will ever come close to a Supreme Court docket.
Think globally, act locally is advice with many applications and ironically, one of its most obvious is most often overlooked. While the federal government deserves our attention and participation, the most powerful way for us to govern ourselves is to be active in the municipal governments, the folks who most directly affect our everyday life and who are most likely to listen to us when we have something to say. I mean, heck, they're just right down the road.
Then, I remembered. I talked to her when I needed to get my car registration switched over from Nebraska to Texas. She worked in a cubicle at the Travis County Tax Assessor's office, over on Airport Blvd., over on the east side of the street. You know, just south of 2222. She was pretty nice, took care of me pretty well. I guess she is the Tax Assessor and Marty Toohey of the Austin American Statesman wrote a little article about her. Good on her!
Karen Huber won the Democrat race for Travis County Commissioner and will face off with Republican incumbant Gerald Daugherty in November, according to Statesman staff writer Katie Humphrey. I might have seen their plastic campaign signs up on a couple of lawns. Who knows. I can't think of a reason why I'd remember them.
Rhonda Hurley is winning in the race for a judge seat in the 98th judicial district, Scott Ozmun for the 353rd district, Jim Coronado for the 427th and Carlos H. Barrera for a seat at County Court-at-Law No. 8. We vote for judges? I thought they were appointed by, uh...the president?
If this stuff confuses me - and it does! - just imagine how uninterested an average population, that thinks that Abraham Lincoln was our first president, is. I mean, Tax Assessor-Collector - isn't that an official of Ancient Rome? County Commissioner, the police answer to them don't they? Isn't it abbreviated "the Commish?" And how many judges do we have anyway? Who cares if we vote for one of them - it's not like it's the Supreme Court.
That is how a lot of people feel about all those little County/Municipal and even State elected officials - who cares? They don't really have that much power - it seems much more important for us to to keep up with who is winning the presidential and congressional elections.
Voting for the president and the national legislature, more than we give it credit, is a more abstract action that will have as much effect on citizens on countries abroad as it does its citizens. Most of the our federal monies go to military operations and administration of that self-same federal government. We vote for these people because of how they will regulate taxes, how they will support the environment, how they will handle crime, how they will change the election process. Did you know that a lot of the method of execution of our polls and elections are handled by Ms. Nelda Wells Spears, who works in a little cubicle in a squat khaki building with bad parking on Airport Blvd? The County Commissioner is the most important legal body in between aggressive developers and permission to cut down forested parks for new subdivisions? Not to mention that anybody who has stood before a judge can tell you how much power those little municipal justices have over our society's tactics against crime and its expressive stance on civil rights. Hardly any of the little county trials that land someone in prison or in rehabilitation will ever come close to a Supreme Court docket.
Think globally, act locally is advice with many applications and ironically, one of its most obvious is most often overlooked. While the federal government deserves our attention and participation, the most powerful way for us to govern ourselves is to be active in the municipal governments, the folks who most directly affect our everyday life and who are most likely to listen to us when we have something to say. I mean, heck, they're just right down the road.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
These Fat Cats Have a Full Plate
Jason Embry wrote a an article (http://www.statesman.com/news/content/shared/news/CONGRESS_HOME14_AUS.html) on the 18 of January in the Austin American-Statesman about Congress easing back on the work hours for the coming year. Apparently, last year the newly Dem. House wanted to prove a work-horse ethic above and beyond that of the Republican House years previously and scheduled a voting work week of five days. Now their pen hands are getting tired and so they are backing off again. When the Republicans ran things, they were voting Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, but even backing the schedule off a little the Democrats are still having everyone report in from Tuesday to Friday, or Monday to Thursday.
So let's think about this a little bit. Most of us look at the branches of government as either some kind of legislative factory, or as Club Fat Cat, either as a machine, or as a place for WASPs to vote raises for themselves. Admit it - that's what you think about our government, isn't it! Well, me too, so this article was good for me to read.
Here's the question: what is a legislator's job? To vote on legislation, right? To represent their state while they do it. OK, there's the problem: where do they live? Their state, for example, Texas. Where do they work? Well, Texas, where they have their office, where they talk to their constituency, where they gather info on what their voters want, where they campaign, where they give speeches to convince people of legislation they feel would be good for the voters. Where do they also work? Washington D.C., where they vote, scheme and speak at the House or Senate. Where they sit on committee and sub-committee meetings and listen to experts talk about this or that on the national level. Where they filibuster, or get filibustered and sit for hours and hours. That means two plane trips a week on most weeks...or more. If they are in Washington four out of five work days and most state and civic organizations they have to talk to at home are only open Monday through Friday, they only have one day to tend to everything back on the home front. And during an election year, this would be all the more hectic.
These are important things to think of as we pass our condemnations or unreasonable expectations along to a bunch of overworked, frantic legislators who are trying to remember the names of their children, who they see a couple times a week. This can at least give a feeling and an idea of the human fallibility of the system and why it sometimes seems that nothing gets done.
So let's think about this a little bit. Most of us look at the branches of government as either some kind of legislative factory, or as Club Fat Cat, either as a machine, or as a place for WASPs to vote raises for themselves. Admit it - that's what you think about our government, isn't it! Well, me too, so this article was good for me to read.
Here's the question: what is a legislator's job? To vote on legislation, right? To represent their state while they do it. OK, there's the problem: where do they live? Their state, for example, Texas. Where do they work? Well, Texas, where they have their office, where they talk to their constituency, where they gather info on what their voters want, where they campaign, where they give speeches to convince people of legislation they feel would be good for the voters. Where do they also work? Washington D.C., where they vote, scheme and speak at the House or Senate. Where they sit on committee and sub-committee meetings and listen to experts talk about this or that on the national level. Where they filibuster, or get filibustered and sit for hours and hours. That means two plane trips a week on most weeks...or more. If they are in Washington four out of five work days and most state and civic organizations they have to talk to at home are only open Monday through Friday, they only have one day to tend to everything back on the home front. And during an election year, this would be all the more hectic.
These are important things to think of as we pass our condemnations or unreasonable expectations along to a bunch of overworked, frantic legislators who are trying to remember the names of their children, who they see a couple times a week. This can at least give a feeling and an idea of the human fallibility of the system and why it sometimes seems that nothing gets done.
Legizecutive Powers
In an article, quite telling about the functions of the US government, Robert Pear, a writer for the NY Times lays out the fascinating elasticity of the executive and legislative branches. The article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/washington/28cnd-earmark.html?hp) is about President Bush promising to veto legislation heavy in Congressional parentheses and fine print called "earmarks". If you were to look earmark up on Wikipedia, you would find that they are stipulations put on bills by legislators to instruct how these laws are to be carried out. Typically these are put in spending bills to instruct where the money allocated is supposed to go.
Now this is where it gets complicated - there are "hard" and "soft" earmarks. Hard earmarks are written into the bill and are legally binding. The rest are kind of written in the margins in Congressional committee reports. These are not written into the bill that goes to the president to be signed and are not legally binding. They are, however, traditionally obeyed, so a lot of fishy whims of individual Representatives and Senators slips through the cracks and money flows into certain "pet projects".
According to the article, the president is brandishing his trusty veto stamp as a threat to future spending bills the House and Senate don't knock it off. This president has always been quite proficient in his legislative checks, but he also threatened to use his executive authority - he could go as far as ordering executive offices to ignore all soft earmarks as they carried out legislation. This kind of thing really makes you think about the play available in the system.
Now this is where it gets complicated - there are "hard" and "soft" earmarks. Hard earmarks are written into the bill and are legally binding. The rest are kind of written in the margins in Congressional committee reports. These are not written into the bill that goes to the president to be signed and are not legally binding. They are, however, traditionally obeyed, so a lot of fishy whims of individual Representatives and Senators slips through the cracks and money flows into certain "pet projects".
According to the article, the president is brandishing his trusty veto stamp as a threat to future spending bills the House and Senate don't knock it off. This president has always been quite proficient in his legislative checks, but he also threatened to use his executive authority - he could go as far as ordering executive offices to ignore all soft earmarks as they carried out legislation. This kind of thing really makes you think about the play available in the system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
