“There’s always the chance that politics are involved in politics.” Steve Urquhart
I wonder if Steve chuckled to himself when he crafted that bit of wisdom today.
I’m always interested in ways to open up government to the average voter so I was interested when I learned about GOOOH (Hat Tip – Mark Towner). Their mission is to change the way we elect representatives and try to make those representatives more accountable to their constituents.
Because GOOOH is a process for selecting representatives (not an agenda-based party platform) we expect a very liberal candidate to be selected in San Francisco and a very conservative one in Colorado Springs — but it will be up to the GOOOH members in each district to decide.
They obviously recognize that some of their ideas will generate some friction:
The most controversial part of GOOOH is that the founder, Tim Cox, has proposed excluding politicians, actively prosecuting attorneys, and individuals with family assets over $11.5 million (250 times the median income) from the process. They are excluded not because they are bad people, but because they are overly represented in government today and, generally speaking, no longer seem to represent the common man.
Personally, as I have spent lots of time thinking and discussing the issue of term limits, I also have a problem with their current stance of promoting a limit of two terms (4 years) in the House -that seems excessively strict to me. On the other hand, it sparked an idea that I would like to explore sometime about the possible ramifications of having a bicameral legislature where one house is term limited and the other is not – allowing voters to be the term limiters in one house and forcing voters to seek fresh faces regularly in the other.
So I like the general idea and I figure that if I want to have any impact in massaging the positions of the group now is the time to act. In any case it’s worth looking into and I would recommend that anyone who is interested in improving our government should go have a look and decide if this is worthy of their support.
I really don’t mind so much if the voters in Utah always choose Republicans to represent them in Congress so long as they replace at least one incumbent on a regular basis (I’d say at least one new face every other election cycle). For that reason, if for no other, I was happy to hear that Jason Chaffetz ousted Chris Cannon in the Republican primary yesterday. District 3 will have a new face and we are guaranteed to have another new face by 2012 with the addition of District 4.
Today I am hoping that Republican primary voters show that they can see through party connections to select a candidate who might actually be qualified for the office of State Treasurer by selecting Richard Ellis to represent the party on the November ballot.
There are other races where I have a preference, but no others that I could vote in.
For all the political talk about what ails our society and how our “leaders” in Washington can fix it, I think that Peter Lovenheim has identified one real solution that can put everything back into perspective – recapturing the meaning of “neighbor.” He asks this very important question that I’d like to take a stab at answering.
Why is it that in an age of cheap long-distance rates, discount airlines and the Internet, when we can create community anywhere, we often don’t know the people who live next door?
My first guess is that this is a matter of scarce resources (time) becoming spread too thin. Because we can stay connected with our college buddies when they are spread around the country we spend less time getting to know the neighbors who may not share any interests with us. When it was more cost prohibitive to keep regular contact with our old friends we were more likely to reach out to the neighbors where we could afford to build the relationships. In fact, I think that we can safely say that prior to easy travel we had the added incentive to build neighbor relations because there was also a higher chance that we were staying closer to home and so our neighbors were likely to have history or family connections with us.
I would not argue that this is acceptable. In fact, I think that this tendency toward disconnection on the local level feeds into our growing propensity to seek solutions to all our problems on a large scale. The less we identify with our local neighborhood the less likely we are to think about concerns on a local level. The more we think in terms of national problems the more we insist and accept the erosion of liberty that almost universally follows when we try to address concerns (rightly or wrongly) on a national scale.
Does anyone else have perspectives to round out my thinking?
Obi wan nailed the truth in his reaction to Democratic Capitulation on FISA and the rule of law. In fact, he nailed it and so did his readers in the comments section:
rmwarnick said…
They all took an oath of office to support and defend the Constitution. Every one of them.
Obi wan liberali said…
They obviously took that oath seriously now did they.
The idea that we need more transit friendly ways to develop our urban and suburban areas is nto new to me. I have long believed it. The idea that government restrictions hinder as often as they help is also easy for me to accept. That’s why I was interested to read about the ways that existing zoning laws often impede smart development.
Many of us will abandon our big gas-guzzling vehicles and forsake new land-guzzling, auto-dependent suburban developments in favor of commuter hubs and “new urbanism” communities clustered near mass-transit stations.
We’ll live sensibly for a change. . . We won’t go kicking and screaming, either. Just give it a little more time. Let the air pollution and traffic congestion and gas pumps that ring up $50, $60, $70 in a blur sink in, and we’ll embrace smart growth and new urbanism and commuter hubs like grandmas hug babies and babies hug puppies.
It’s already starting to happen . . . But there’s still one big obstacle . . . If commuter hubs and bus stop/train station developments are going to become the norm, if we’re going to change our wasteful ways and ease the burden on our environment and pocketbooks, local governments have to lead, or at least get out of the way.
“High density” can no longer be dirty words. Commercial and residential zones must be melded. Those tired old requirements of two parking spaces for every doorstep have to go.
My ideals for my family living situation include a large yard and I begin to wonder if that conflicts with my ideals for smarter growth and a more transit-centric lifestyle.
I think I’ll try to tackle that issue with some ideas of how to meld the two ideals – not just for me, but in general municipal planning. Any thoughts for me to consider?
These papers offer an analysis of other governments which might be compared and contrasted with the system being outlined in the Constitution. I don’t consider myself expert enough to critique the analysis, but it is very interesting to see that advantages of this new system as perceived by Hamilton and Madison when compared to Greece (No. 18), Germany (No. 19), and the Netherlands (No. 20).
While trying to find out how Tiger Woods did in the playoff round of the U.S. Open today (he birdied the last hole to force sudden death and then won on the first sudden death playoff hole) I stumbled upon news of the launching of PerotCharts.com. This website is a project of Ross Perot which provides important information that every person in the U.S. needs to understand (and every member of Congress needs to accept). Helping Ross Perot is David Walker who was the Comptroller General of the United States until recently – he was the person responsible for creating government fiscal projections and he seems to be tired of having his numbers spun by politicians for their own gain at our national peril.
Using data from the government itself, Perot Charts shows the fiscal cliff that we are facing and on “chart” 34 of a 35 chart Fiscal Challenges presentation there are four suggestions for how to begin correcting our dire situation:
Of those four suggestions, we should be implementing at least 2 if not 3 of them (restructuring entitlement programs, cutting discretionary spending, and finding ways to raise revenue as well). What we don’t need is to borrow more – that only exacerbates the problem.
These last couple of days have been overwhelming. I can hardly keep up with everything I need to do – which is why I failed to post. I’m still trying to catch up so this is mostly a chance for me prove that I have not disappeared. It is also a chance for me to point to the Radio West show from yesterday, The Case for the Independent Farm.
I was very excited when I started listening to the show. It really makes you take a fresh look at agriculture as a business and also at how the production of our true necessities (such as food) affects our lives and our lifestyles so broadly. I am hoping to break the whole show down and share more of what I learned from it. Until then, here’s one nugget:
The encouragement {in agriculture} is to do more work with less people, hence the myth that modern farming is efficient – well it’s more efficient per man hour but it’s not more efficient per acre, if anything it’s much less efficient per acre but we tend to measure efficiency in man hours and capital rather than in land which is the one variable that we probably won’t ever have any more of. – George Pyle, author of Raising Less Corn, More Hell