In democratic societies, government is said to be “for the people, by the people, and of the people.” In the broadest sense, one could infer from this that governing institutions such as ours are not controlled by hereditary clans or moneyed interests, but instead are an amalgam of the interests of the general public, instituted by representatives of the public who are drawn from the population of common citizens. Take a good look at the political landscape today. Look back twenty years, thirty years, fifty years. The government we have today isn’t, and hasn’t been for some time, for the people, by the people, or of the people. It is a system filled with wealthy men and women, some from political families that span generations. It is a system of unabashed cronyism and political appointees whose only qualifications are the donations they collected. It is a system of flagrant corporate collusion that puts the profits over the people. And it is a system that is largely being abandoned by the very people it purports to represent, through their compounding apathy bred by years of stagnancy and corruption. We are losing our experiment with self-determination largely because we are failing to preserve it.
Our founding fathers held many lofty ideals regarding the state of mankind and its right and ability to self-govern. Their words are recorded in our most precious national documents and in their speeches and memoirs. Phrases like “All men are created equal,” and “…life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” inspire us, but if looked at in the context of the actions of those who spoke them, it becomes obvious that the phrases and their meanings, like humanity itself, have evolved to more truly represent their empirical meanings. In 1776, all men were not equal. Equality in those days was reserved for white, male landowners. In 1776, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were not applicable to blacks or Indians or any other non-European descendant. It wasn’t really for the poor either, at least not to the same degree as it was applied to the wealthier population. But words have meaning, and when words such as these are enshrined in national politics, they have a tendency to assert themselves. And in a democracy, even one with obvious limitations, these words have a way of realizing their true potential. Today’s definition of “all men are created equal” includes men of all colors and races, including women and children. And though it occurred gradually, at times even painfully slowly, it has taken the will and determination of common people to realize the dreams that words such as those promise. So it is the same with the phrase “government for the people, by the people, and of the people.”
Government for the People What does this phrase mean to you? Does it mean that governmental bodies should spend their days crafting favorable legislation for their political donors? Does it mean that tax dollars collected should be diverted to meaningless studies or inefficient, bloated, or poorly managed programs? Does it mean that your elected officials should ignore their fundamental role as servant to the citizens or politicize issues that have no place in the political realm? Does it mean that government should be an exclusive club requiring the right pedigree or personal connection? Or does the phrase “government for the people” imply that any action undertaken by our governmental officials must have at its core an overwhelming public benefit, provided with the greatest efficiency and highest available quality? Perhaps the biggest problem with our government today, and I’m talking about all levels of government from the local and state levels all the way to the federal system, is that politicians no longer seem to remember that ours is supposed to be a government for the people. Instead, they use their positions of trust and influence to increase their own power base and personal wealth while helping their buddies to the public till as well. Pick up a newspaper and you’re sure to find an article a day about public officials getting charged with a crime or about an agencies fiscal undoing. Our government is no longer for the people, except for a relatively select few who get richer at the expense of the rest of the population, for the simple reason that it is no longer a government of the people.
Government of the People Government of the people is the inside joke of our national and local political systems. Even at its inception, none of the ruling class of the day really wanted to open up the halls of power to the common man. Inferred, but seldom verbalized was the notion that politics was the domain of the wealthy or college educated or socially connected person and definitely not a place for the dirt farmer or the taxi driver or the construction laborer. Every so often, a man of humble origins would find himself elected to office, but his ascent could usually be traced through military service, lending an air of courage and strength in place of sophistication and birthright. The result is a ruling class, albeit an elected one, that has little in common with the general population, save the need to eat and drink and sleep. For a government to be for the people, if must first be of the people. Unfortunately, those who have passed the reins of power among their social and literal descendants have also gamed the system so as to preclude admission from any but those already like themselves. The process to become an officially recognized candidate for political office is fraught with barriers that to an average working person may be unbreakable. But to a person with money and access, political office is more of a game or a hobby, with the added benefit of increasing ones own net worth at the expense of the public tax roll. To restrict the playing field even more, political aspirants not affiliated with a major party are ignored by the press (controlled of course by the moneyed interests) and required to prove their ballot “worthiness” by jumping through additional bureaucratic hoops. And if you can get through all of that, there’s still the matter of collecting thousands of signatures or paying an entrance fee to become a candidate. If you’re working a job to feed the family, when do you find time to go signature gathering? Or maybe you’ve got a few thousand dollars just lying around to buy your name on the ballot? Designs like these often ensure that the common man does not get a chance to represent his fellow citizens. Those that are truly of the people are locked out from the start.
Government by the People Because government is not really representative of the people, and because it is not truly for the people, it goes to reason that we don’t have a government by the people either. To say that a government is by the people is to imply that the things government does are things that the people want it to do. If the government asks the people to approve a tax for road improvements, then government must make sure that roads are improved with the revenue, because that’s what people directed government to do. This is an example of government by the people. But does your local government act this way. How about your state governments? Or does your government pursue its own agenda, dictated by the interests of its elite membership class, with little forethought towards the citizens other than finding a snazzy way to present their latest swindle? If government were really operating under the principal “by the people” we would not have cities and states on the brink of bankruptcy. We would not have national laws flaunted by violators and unenforced by lawmakers. We would not have record level deficits or destructive national policies because the people would not let these things stand. Not if they had any real say they wouldn’t.
Words do have meaning, and the words “for the people, by the people, and of the people” have meaning too. But in order for their full meaning to be realized, we must recognize the importance of our place in maintaining and ensuring such a government. For the American experiment in government to be a success for all citizens, we must reinvigorate our role in this participatory government of self-rule. We must reinvent ourselves as concerned and involved citizens. We must all vote and perform other civic duties like serving on a jury or sitting on citizen advisory panels. We must also reform our political financing laws and streamline the process for candidate eligibility. We must clearly express what we expect and what we will not tolerate from politicians and crack down on government corruption, including the loss of personal privacy in an increasingly shrinking world of information. And we must be willing to serve each other selflessly for the common good and to give back to our society as thanks for all that we get in return.
Words have meaning. But unless we speak them loud enough and often enough and back them up with our actions, words are just words. And in this case, the words we ignore are the ones that come back to haunt us.
This entry was posted on Thursday, September 22nd, 2005 at 6:27 am and is filed under Common Sense, Democracy, Government, Politics, Reform.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
September 22nd, 2005 at 4:30 pm
I bet we’d see a significant drop in apathy if we demanded and got a complete overhaul of how campaigns are run and financed in this country. Not that I forsee our representatives shooting the golden goose anytime soon, or the corporations who fund them putting up with it for one minute.
September 22nd, 2005 at 9:32 pm
Ken,
The thread that ties your whole post together lies with one question. If government is not of the people, for the people and by the people, then whom is it for?
I think the answer rests in another of your posts on capitalism. Indeed, if you just take a look at Halliburton (publically traded), if a person bought stock before the invasion of Iraq, it would have cost you round about 15 or 16 bucks a share. Today, your shares would be worth around 66 or 67 dollars. In less than four years, your investment would have a four fold increase in value over your orignal investment.
Let’s put that in real dollars. If you had invested 10,000 dollars in March of 2002, you would now have about 42,000 if you cashed out. Not a bad return.
Now, if you bought in or were included in the ground floor (pre IPO – and there is no telling how low a price Cheney and pals got in for) round about 31 Dec 1981 your same 10K invested would be worth 1,042,000. Yes, that’s over one million dollars.
So, when asking who is the government working for rather than who is it not working for, the answer becomes very troubling.
Certainly, many folks from New Orleans didn’t have the forsight and the werewithall to invest in Halliburton or they would be profiting by the disaster that laid their homes to waist. Our Vice president is, and there is no telling who else is in this small collection of “people” is winning becuase of the actions of “our” government.
Source for stock price:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=HAL&a=11&b=31&c=1981&d=8&e=22&f=2005&g=d&z=66&y=5940
September 23rd, 2005 at 12:03 am
The US government is exactly what the American people want, and deserve.
They want a government that will pay for Granny’s drugs, fix the potholes out on the street, defend the world, explore the Solar System, pay for TV stations, keep indecent words of the air, prevent people from smoking pot, bankroll the UN, put police officers on every corner, keep the price of milk stable, operate the justice system, prevent companies from polluting, build the world’s best fighter planes, finance everyone’s retirement, underwrite every company’s pension, ride to the rescue whenever disaster strikes, run the schools, finance college loans….
It is a nightmare of complexity. But every interest group – farmers (and companies like ADM), seniors , government workers unions, military contractors- has gotten something.
And each – predictably – wants more.
Your error, Ken, is failing to see the difference between a politician who gives a tax break to a company so that it will create jobs in his district, and the politician who tells millions of seniors that he will pay for every drug they’ll ever need.
Both are using government money to buy votes. Is it corruption? Or is it politics as usual?
Here’s a test: where do you stand on the Transportation bill? Or the Farm subsidies?
Politicians – from both parties – have always been scummy.
The error is that the American people have let them write a very large check.
And the funds aren’t there – and can never be there – to cover it.
The fiscals conservatives will be proved right.
But the only joy they will have will be the schaden fraude of being able to say we told you so.
September 23rd, 2005 at 5:38 am
“The fiscals conservatives will be proved right.”
I’d like to know who those are, exactly. They’re certainly not the Republicans, who claim the title but demonstrate the opposite in values and policies.
And hey – those tax breaks to companies to create jobs – I’ll bet some resarch will show most of those tax breaks go into owners’ pockets and a lot of the investment is outsourced overseas.
John, Americans do not get the government they want and deserve. Maybe you want and deserve it, but I and many others don’t. A few of them do, the power players who are in control. Everybody else is either fooled by pandering rhetoric or screwed because they’re powerless to change things. And don’t say the answer is in voting – thanks to Diebold, etc., voting is just a charming memory of the way things used to be.
Ken… you know, there was a time when I would have blamed a lot of our situation on poor voter turnout. Now I can only blame the past on that. I know, I sound defeatist. But judging by the 2000 and 2004 elections, we may have entered a period of criminal politics that will get a lot worse before it gets better.
September 23rd, 2005 at 9:33 am
Sheanc:
“The fiscals conservatives will be proved right.”
I’d like to know who those are, exactly. They’re certainly not the Republicans, who claim the title but demonstrate the opposite in values and policies.
No, they certainly are not the Republicans.
You seem to feel that our politicians are unresponsive (and illegimate – but that’s another issue).
So here’s a test: can you name one issue that has overwhelming and passionate support (that would be >70% of the country fervently in favor) that is not being addressed by politicians in some way?
You can’t, and that’s becuase there aren’t any.
That’s not to say that the political ideas are correct and workable – they aren’t.
But polticians are passing bills, resolutions and spending money to trying to _at least – look as thought they are solving them. So of them – like health care are market-based problems that will always defy a government imposed solution.
But it is always easier to pass the bill for silly worthless feel good programs into the future.
But I would argue that polticians are responsive to so many different interests that they can’t do anything bold without offending some of them.
John Kerry is a perfect example (say one thing for one interest group, say one thing to another), but any politican fits the bill here, Bush included.
You want to say that you are mad because politicians don’t respond to your people. But the problem is that other people are just ahead of you in line.
September 23rd, 2005 at 8:16 pm
Perhaps our system of government has become obsolete and in need of some major revisions.
September 23rd, 2005 at 8:42 pm
I agree that democracy isn’t necessarily by or for the people. However, in this corrupt and sinful world maybe it’s the best we have. At least the politicians know that they have to listen to the people to some degree if they want to be re-elected.
September 25th, 2005 at 5:19 am
’21st Century’ is an anagram of ‘apathy’. Well, okay, it’s not, but I don’t give a shit. In fact I don’t care about apathy at all.
September 25th, 2005 at 8:12 pm
2500 years ago Confucous said that a picture is worth a thousand words, right? In fact, he didn’t.He said a picture is worth a thousand pieces of gold! No S.! Oddly enough… the WORDS are the only thing (not pictures or gold) that actually lasted 2500 years. My point is…maybe words are enough. They are at least SOMETHING.
Is that apathetic enough for ya?
September 26th, 2005 at 4:26 am
John: “So here’s a test: can you name one issue that has overwhelming and passionate support (that would be >70% of the country fervently in favor) that is not being addressed by politicians in some way?
You can’t, and that’s becuase there aren’t any.”
You have access accurate polling data to back up a claim like that? If I had that kind of data, then I am confident I could find an issue that fits the criteria you describe. Unfortunately, I don’t, and I suspect, neither do you (no offense intended, just clarifying the issue here).
September 26th, 2005 at 5:13 am
(responses)
Jet- I plan to address those very issues in this series of essays. And, no, we can’t expect the current crop of pwoer brokers to easily capitulate…that is why the apathy must end and the voices must form a cohesive, forceful movement towards returning the governing capabilities to the people, for the benefit of the people. Always good to hear from you Jet.
Windspike- I suppose that is the unspoken question, isn’t it. Let us agree though that government SHOULD BE for the people. of the people, and by the people. Now we just have to get the people to remember this and exercise their right to self-government.
As always, an insightful comment that is apprecisted.
John- I tend to both agree and disagree. I don’t think the average American wants the government we have, not when the corruption and ineffectiveness is laid bare, as happened with Hurricane Katrina. But I would agree that we get what we deserve, in light of widespread apathy.
For every thing you say people want, there are those who want the opposite. Government should have more clearly defined parameters within which it works and society needs to understand that policies that target one group for either benefit or punishment ultimately don’t benefit the group as a whole, if only because of what you say- they each always want more. Soon we have people fighting over the limited resources of the group, and in the end, we get little or nothing of what we say we want while the corporations, unions, and politicians get their way each and every time.
I don’t really distinguish between these types of politicians as you surmise, but accept the fact that both types of maneuvers are designed to either maintain power for powers sake or gain personal wealth at the expense of the tax payer. Both are antithetical to what a true public servant should do. Yes, they should look out for individual interests, and promote economic activity, but to a degree and without thinking of personal benefit. Those that choose power over service are not public servants or leaders in any sense of the word.
Your test answer? Both are riddled with fraud and waste and abuse, but their basic premises (transportation infrastructure and safety and lower food costs/higher farm profit margins) are designed with some public benefit in mind. They are subverted though by the pork barrel politics that has become business as usual for politics.
But does politics have to be synonymous with government or could government be enacted with more altruistic ambitions?
As for the fiscal conservatives…where are they? And what about the fiscal liberals (yes, they exist.)? Sad truth is that fiscal responsibility is in sort supply these days. The only “I told you so’s” will be coming from the people who can see through the fraud of both sides of the aisle.
(I know your comments continue…I will adress them in turn.)
Shea- As you and John have a separate (but related) debate, I will address only those comments you pose to me…I think that electoral rules need to be overhauled and I’ll be offering some ideas of my own. But elections, though the most important means of giving voice, are not the only way to be heard.
I’m not sure how things can really get much worse…just more known.
John- How about Illegal Immigration? Plenty of people are incensed about this and yet politicians do little more than pay it lip service. They are not addressing it in any real way at all, aside from the occasional press release of a bill being sent to a committee. Rarely does the bill make it out, or was it intended to be anything more than a press release put into the public record for a future reference in a future campaign.
And shouldn’t we all be in the same line, at least pretty much?
George- Obsolete? I don;t think so. In need of revisions. Definitely. (Read the header quote on this blog to see that this isn’t really a new idea, just one whose time has come again.) Thanks for stopping by.
Just Wandering- In todays world, they only have to pretend to listen. Apathy assures that the facade is good enough. We can and should do better, expect better, demand better. Glad to have your comments here.
RuKsaK & BonJ- I assume that your comments were tongue in cheek to satirize my point, but apathy is a scourge on self-determination. Words are not enough when they become a distortion of themselves at the detriment of society. At some point, action must occur, change must happen, but whether that change is for the betterment or worsening of our freedom and liberty is yet to be known.
Shea- Interesting debate between you and John. Nice to have these comment sections facilitate adult conversation. John, I believe the reply is now yours….
September 27th, 2005 at 1:05 am
Ken:
How about Illegal Immigration? Plenty of people are incensed about this and yet politicians do little more than pay it lip service.
Illegal immigration is a problem, not a policy prescription.
Significant numbers of Americans favor guest worker programs nad periodic amnesties. A good number favor forced deportations. Some want to leave things as they are. Some want walls, some want militia patrols along the border.
No one policy commands overwhelming support.
If anything like a public consensus develops on what needs to be done, politicians will jump all over it.
Your summary of our govenmnt is depressingly apt. There is certainly plenty of sleaze to go around. But that is the government America deserves: we expect the government to do everything.(the federal government did nothing after a hurricane destroyed Galveston, for example).
Naturally, corporations try to get politicans tend send money their way, and politicians blatantly use the treasury to buy votes for themselves.
Someday cutting the pork from our budget will not be an option; it will be our only option.
I’m curious about you contention that farm subsidy programs are for the common good. Can you explain how that works with sugar, where sugar is so expensive in the US that we can’t even afford to put it in cola? Or pineapples? Or timber?
Why do we subsidize the farmer who grows rice or soybeans, but not the farmer produces eggs?
Has allowing the free market to reign in egg production worked so badly? (FYI: eggs are pretty cheap and plentiful).
Shea: here’s a deal: you give me an issue that commands overwhelming public support and is being ignored by politicians of both parties, and I will produce the polling data (to prove you wrong, actually).
There is no issue that fits that bill. Such an issue would be a huge political opportunity to whatever politicans embraced it.
(Be sure to give a specific policy. For example, don’t just say “people hate the war.” Say something like “a large majority of people want an immediate, unconditional withdrawal” (which is not true – yet).)
September 27th, 2005 at 3:27 am
Geez, John, what am I, your waiter or something? You place all those conditions on me and expect me to come bounding down the path like a dog? I told you once. I don’t have access to data that truly reveals what groups of Americans think, nor do I believe you do. Nor, for that matter, do I believe you have access to information detailing what all of America’s politicians are working on, concerned about, planning, etc. For all I know your information comes from some lame media outlet, and I am not going to lob ideas at you so that you can reply with, “well, my expert resources say otherwise.” Do your own research. I’ll give you one example off the top of my head, as a gift, shall we say, and that will be all. I neither know nor care whether it meets your very specific critera, but it is this: Pork-Barrel Spending. You can also call it government waste, or whatever. I have never met anyone who supports, or claims to support, wasteful spending of tax revenue. But the only politician I can think of who made any headway against it was Al Gore, and he’s long gone. Any politician you name who battles pork-barrel spending can probably be shown to be a recipient of it.
Cherish that example, for I am loathe to respond to challenges.
September 27th, 2005 at 9:44 am
SheaNC:
“Pork barrel spending.”
You are right that few people support “pork barrel sending.”
What about federal money to refurbish your local library? Or build a nearby museum? Or money to fix that local rickety bridge? Money to keep your local PBS station on the air?
I’ll bet even you would support those things, eh?
Most people support those things, and they generally pressure politicians to get them. They tend to be louder – much louder – than the people who argue that those should be the responsibilty of LOCAL taxpayers.
You see, it is not that government is unresponsive. It is responsive to the groups that make the most noise. The problem with government is that it is UNRESPONSIBLE.
When you have built bridges, libraries and bike trails in every district in Congress, you have a spending problem.
Our spending problem in Congress is kind of like the person who knows it is wrong to run up his credit cards, but does it anyway because he can’t control his impulses.
That – btw – is a very common trait among American voters.
That is why I say: we have gotten the government we deserve.
September 29th, 2005 at 3:11 am
You did not address what I was talking about, “wasteful spending.” Example, “fixing a rickety bridge” versus building an unnecessary bridge. Or, fixing a bridge that will save lives versus ignoring a problem that causes worse ones.
By your logic, anything bad that happens to you is what you deserve. Well, I happen to know absolutely and irrefutably that that is not true.
Besides that, you generalize, lumping the rest of us in with your self-assesment. Well, not all of us fit your profile. Many of us do not. There are always exceptions to the rule: generalizations are always wrong.
September 29th, 2005 at 4:14 pm
SheaNC:
You are the one dodging the issue.
Yes, “wasteful spending” is hated by everyone.
But defining “wasteful spending” is not easy.
For example, famr subsidies – in my opinion – are a CLEAR example of “wasteful spending.”
I’ll bet you would not agree.
Yes, everyone hates “bridges to nowhere.”
But in Alaska, that bridge could be big boost to town’s economy, generating jobs and opportunities.
That is the way Alaskans are going to see it, even if I don’t.
But back to the point: there is no policy that you are able to name that commands overwhelming public support that is not being acted by government in one form or another.
conclusion: government is not unresponsive (but it is irresponsible).