Harry
Truman once opined that anyone who wanted to be seriously involved in political
governance should be well versed in history. President Truman said that given
the same or similar circumstances, no matter what the timing, people, including
those holding office, would react in pretty much the same manner. A review of
history indicates Truman very likely was right.
Though
George Washington was unanimously selected and revered as the wisest of
presidents and the logical choice to lead a fledgling nation, in his farewell
address he warned against a partisan spirit that could divide the nation.
Early
in our country’s history, Thomas Jefferson was beset with partisan divisiveness
in Congress. Jefferson was moved to say, “You and I have formerly seen warm debates
and high political passions, but gentlemen of different politics would then
speak to each other... It is not
now so. Men who have been intimate all their lives cross the street to avoid
meeting and turn their heads another way lest they be obliged to touch their
hats.” (Letter,
Thomas Jefferson to Edward Rutledge; Philadelphia, June 24, 1797).
Alexander
Hamilton, then one of the leaders of the Federalist Party, believed too much
democracy would weaken a nation to the point it could not survive in the then
world of governments. On the other hand, the Republican Party, led by Thomas
Jefferson and others, was convinced the Federalists had secret plans to try to
turn the United States into a monarchy. Some even suggested that, rather than
retiring as president, George Washington should be named the first king of the
United States. Given those differences, it seems history has a longstanding
tendency toward division.
Even
in Texas divisive politics is not new to modern-day elections or governance. In
reading the history of Sam Houston’s political career, one will discover not
only was there free-wheeling debate on real issues but also, on at least one
occasion, in a public debate, participants even drew their weapons and
threatened a duel on stage. Sam Houston, departing from discussion of serious
political issues during a campaign, once accused his opponent of having robbed
a bank and dropping the safe from the bank into the river!
Fortunately
for America, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, bitter enemies at one point,
eventually managed to enter into what apparently is abhorred by our current leaders
in Washington–compromise. Jefferson and several leaders of the Federalist
movement put aside their differences and managed to move forward with
provisions which enabled a young American nation to ward off threats by France,
England and hostile Indians to wield and mold America into the world power of
its time.
The
ingredient missing in Jefferson’s time which appears to be a serious impediment
to compromise and the adoption of common-sense measures to move this country
forward is money-- money-wielding influence through highly-paid, highly-skilled,
well-connected lobbyists. In Jefferson’s time I daresay members of Congress
outnumbered those attempting to influence legislation and the will of Congress.
Sadly, the same is not true today. Congress is out numbered probably at least
five or six to one by well-paid lobbyists who, since a Supreme Court’spronouncement that corporations are people, may spend unlimited amounts of money
to influence government.
Members of Congress will quickly argue they are in
Congress to do great things-- but they will be unable to do things of any
magnitude unless they are there.
Being there requires re-election, and
with the Supreme Court’s ruling money is becoming more and more important to
our process.
If
any Texan doubts the power of money in politics, that person should go check
the list of campaign contributions to our current governor and compare them to
appointments to important and strategic boards or administrative positions. I
will say without fear of contradiction that any careful investigation or
comparison of campaign contributions to appointments would reveal that more
appointees to boards of regents, administrative bodies and judge-ships will be
found to have contributed upwards of $100,000 each to Governor Perry’s election
efforts, both as candidate for governor and for president of the United States.
Most of the beneficiaries of the over $800,000,000 in “slush” funds have given
large contributions to Governor Perry.
It is only with an alert, involved and investigative electorate that politicians
at all levels will be forced to recognize commonsense measures and return our
governing bodies to a sense of cooperative spirit which will be in the best
interest of our country.
The
future of real republican-style government in the United States depends on what
the average citizen is willing to pay in time, study and effort to overcome the
greed and avarice of those with unlimited funds. Otherwise we will get what they pay for.
No comments:
Post a Comment
All comments are reviewed and it may take a little bit before your comment is published. Anonymous contributions take a lot longer and may perish for lack of attention.