June 18, 2005
We let these people govern US?
Scott Scheule posted yesterday on why it strange that all statists seem to think that individuals are irrational enough that they can’t be trusted to make their own decisions, but that they are rational enough to elect people who are capable of doing it for them. Or, as Jefferson asked:
Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him?
So we have to ask ourselves, can these elected officials be trusted with our governance? Well, The Brad Blog (no relation) provides evidence that they cannot. Watching the Daily Show the other night, I saw a wonderful display of immaturity from James Sensenbrenner. Unfortunately, I can’t find the video of it off hand, but perhaps if it is available, one of my readers can point it out. Holding a hearing on the Patriot Act, he proceeded to cut off the testimony of witnesses he didn’t like, mid-sentence. He then, on a whim, decided to call the meeting to a close. He did this over the objection of one of the Democratic members (who was trying to call out “Point of Order” at the time), then walked out of the room carrying his gavel. When the Democrat tried to address the crowd, staffers turned off his mic.
This display of childishness is all too familiar. Politics in Washington is a battle between the Bloods and the Crips, with no rules and with “winning” far superseding any sense of ethics or serving the public. You see this behavior, and yet you entrust Congress as a body to make decisions for you? For all those statists who believe that the government can fix the problems of the private sector, please let me know exactly what problems the government has fixed in the past to make you believe this?
The Unrepentant Individual linked with Prime Minister’s Questions
The Unrepentant Individual linked with Marginal utility of charity
7 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I’ve made this self same challenge a hundred times, at least. Either I’ve received the cyber equivalent of a blank stare, or somebody ingeniously mentions the New Deal and honestly believes that we are better off with the New Deal and the Great Society in place. Even though, statistically, we can show that the number of people below the poverty line worsened measurably after all of that socialism was put in place.
This sort of thing is the strongest argument for anarchy you can make. Much stronger than positive outcomes or Mills style utilitarian arguments that anarchy provides better for more people. No, this childish, ridiculous behavior. For my entire adult life I have heard about how we want a responsive, proactive, responsible government. I have heard a million ideas put forth by politicians. What I have not heard is a success story. And it’s not like there was some magical, wondrous golden age of governance that we can bring back if only we try hard enough. There have been some extremely isolated instances in human history, such as the American constitutional convention, where politics actually worked. Of course, that convention had almost no lawyers in it, perhaps that explains it. But, even there, there were some bad compromises made that were very destructive for future generations. Politicians always live in the here and now, how do I get re-elected is their primary motivator. You don’t really expect that to provide anything other than short term thinking, do you? We know that quarterly bottom line approaches are extremely poor ways of conducting corporate business. Why should we expect better out of people who have to meet bi-annual bottom lines? Because they are somehow going to be wonderful, altruistic people? That was the one big mistake Jefferson, Madison, et al made was assuming that all politicians would be like them.
Not to take anything away from your point, because it is one that I definitely agree with, but there is a little more to the Sensenbrenner story than your link makes light of. While I agree that his actions were inappropriate, it’s important that they are viewed in context. This was a hearing on the Patriot Act. However, the Democrats on the committee and the people giving testimony from Amnesty International turned this (as they do so many other events) into an opportunity to spout off about the “torture” that is taking place at Gitmo. Sensenbrenner tried repeatedly to keep the hearing on topic, but was unsuccessful. I’m not trying to defend his actions here, because just walking out of a committee and “taking your toys and going home” is never appropriate. But the link you provided portrayed this as Sensenbrenner trying to shut up debate on the Patriot Act, and that’s simply not true.
Mike,
I brought this up partly to make sure I wasn’t seen as simply picking on Democrats. I could easily have joined the choir on the Durbin thing, or picked on Dean, Kennedy, Byrd, etc. There’s enough idiocy to go around, so I picked this one above the others. My apologies for not putting it into full context though.
Not a problem; there’s enough blame to go around on all sides.
Anyway, Eric really hit the nail on the head, with his observation that politicians have to meet bi-annual bottom lines. People will sometimes ask me if I’d ever consider running for office in the future (since I seem to know, like, everything about politics and stuff). I just tell them that no one would ever vote for me, because I have this awful tendency to speak my mind. And that if I ever did get elected, I sure as hell wouldn’t get re-elected because I’d have too many negative soundbites for my opponent to run in ads.
[...] it from taxpayers, they actually have to offer results. In addition, as Eric pointed out here, elected officials think purely in short-term electab [...]
[...] hink that if our government actually did this, people might occasionally pay attention. I posted a while back about how our politicians have a thinly veiled hat [...]