Do Not Reelect Your Tea Party Representative

You live in a District that is represented by a Tea Party enthusiast. You supported that individual in the 2010 election. You were concerned about the economy, and you believed what you understood to be the Tea Party philosophy. You believed in smaller government, lower taxes, less spending, and a different way of doing business in Washington. Do you, however, agree with the way these representatives have refused to work with others to solve problems? Is that really what you were looking for when you sent your new Representative to Washington? Additionally, was it your desire to dismantle Medicare, cut Social Security, and balance the budget on the backs of the poor, the elderly, and others in need?

What has been the result of what seemed initially to be a not unreasonable experiment in government? We have seen a downgrade in our government's credit rating for the first time in our history. We have seen intransigence and rigidity, including a fierce adherence to a dangerous ideology which has resulted in an inability to achieve even the most rudimentary tasks of government. We have watched as the Republican Party has allowed the Tea Party minority to determine the agenda of government and to thwart reasonable proposals that could have a positive result for our country.

The Tea Party has demonstrated a refusal to participate in government. They have shown an inability to understand what it means to govern. It seems that they prefer doing harm to their country rather than working with anyone in government to move the country forward. They even have no use for members of their own party if they don't adhere to every jot and tittle of their agenda. These are the representatives who have attached themselves to the anti-tax hero Grover Norquist and have signed his petition. Your Representative has to check with him to determine what they are or are not allowed to do. It is he, not the Congress, that determines what is or is not a tax increase. Is this anyway to run a government?

Part of the difficulty is that like religious fanatics, they are so convinced of the rightness of their beliefs and plans, they do not value the ideas of others. They do not even value other individuals. Their plans and intentions are so perfect and so pure that anybody who does not jump on their bandwagon needs to be eliminated from the field of battle. It is this blindness to the real world we live in that makes it possible for them to say no and refuse any deal that comes along because only their vision of the world is an acceptable one.

So what may be the result if your Tea Party representative remains in office? It will likely result in a failure to allow the new congressional committee of twelve to reach a deal that will prevent a second credit rating downgrade. Continued adherence to this no new revenue pledge, dooms the Congress to be unable to address the very issue you sent your representative to Congress to address, namely the deficit and government spending. This dangerous stalemate will continue on every budget issue as time goes on. These members do not appear to want movement. Either they want stalemate or they prefer to be able to use failure as an issue rather than actually achieve progress. I don't see how such an approach to governance can be considered democratic or useful.

Tea Party supporters were asked at a recent presidential debate for Republican Candidates if they would accept a deal that was 10 to 1 in favor of spending cuts over revenue enhancements. The answer was a resounding no. This kind of approach to solving our nation's problems cannot be seen as serious or helpful. Since all the presidential candidates at the debate acquiesced to such a belief one has to wonder about the seriousness of their candidacies as well, but that is a subject for another time.

So, I recommend that each voter begin to seriously consider now, the implications of retaining in office any representative who does not appear to understand the Constitution or the operation of the legislative branch of government. You cannot reach meaningful compromise with a group of legislators who refuse to compromise. The issues facing our country today require serious individuals with an openness to reasonable ideas. Those in this category have strongly endorsed a balanced approach that includes spending cuts and revenue enhancements to work toward a balanced budget. Those who would obstruct meaningful movement in that direction need to be replaced by folks who are committed to work towards forming a more perfect union.

A Flawed Constitution

Well, the deal is done and Congress will likely approve the deal. Default will be averted and all will be well with the world. Or will it? What has this manufactured crisis done for the United States of America? Is our country and our Congress better off because of the arrival of a large group of freshman Congressmen known as Tea Partiers? Is this any way to run a government? What have we accomplished besides demonstrating that this government is incredibly dysfunctional, as the President has indicated?

One of the key elements of the tea party credo is the inviolability of the Constitution and the need to adhere to it in all its particulars. Ironically their strategy in this instance has demonstrated the serious flaws and perhaps even the failure of our Constitution to help us through the chaos the tea party created. The Tea Party has attempted, and with some significant success to operate the United States Government as a minority government. If their agenda is not implemented 100% they will ensure that nothing gets implemented even if it means the destruction of the economy or the country. Yet in my civics class I learned strange things like the existence of three branches of government so that no branch would have too much power. I learned that the bicameral legislature was designed to ensure equal representation for small states and for all the people. I learned that the essence of democracy involves the search for compromise.

The Senate was expected to check the behavior of the House from moving too fast, but it has now created its own rules to ensure once again that it is the minority that rules. Sixty votes are now required to pass virtually anything, including being allowed to simply discuss a topic. The Constitution was predicated on the premise that reasonable people would find a way to overcome their differences and find a way forward for the good of the country. The Constitution failed to envision the current crop of freshman Republicans. The system of checks and balances cannot work if one group decides it simply will not accept the check of another group.

The debt ceiling may well be raised but we have a true constitutional crisis. The American people have tended to like divided government and it has often served us well. It has prevented us moving too far to the right or left, but instead steering a middle course that has in many ways defined our greatness. Yet we have always been able to get things done when required, whether it be on social security, welfare reform, or many other examples that could be cited. What we have learned in this pseudo crisis is that a minority group of elected representatives can make it impossible to reach compromise if they just refuse to be part of the effort. That was not envisioned by the founding fathers and it highlights a glaring weakness in our ability to govern ourselves. The fact that a deal was finally struck after the havoc this has created in world governments, wall street, and main street, offers no assurance that we do have a government that functions. Add the fact that Republicans continued to insist that we revisit this crisis again in a few months and one is inclined to believe that they are actually delighting in their ability to gum up the works.

We are already hearing voices suggesting a need for some fundamental change in our government. The most frequently heard suggestion which has been mentioned often through the years is the need for a third party. I have no problem with a third party, yet I see little likelihood of it succeeding. A third party has never been successful in our country throughout our entire history. In my lifetime we have seen most notably, George Wallace, John Anderson, Ross Perot and Ralph Nader. I voted for John Anderson, and I felt Ralph Nader stole the election from Al Gore, but the bottom line is none of these insurgencies have done more than create some confusion in the electorate, and none have provided a lasting legacy. I see no reason to believe that the situation is any different now.

I really begin to wonder if we do not need to seriously look at a parliamentary system as one possible option. At least one party would be elected and could implement its agenda. If we didn't like it we could vote in the other party, and the party in power would have to call for new elections if it was felt that they had gotten out of hand. I'm not saying this would be a perfect form of government, or even that it would be better than what we have. I am saying that the time has come to seriously consider changes to our form of government because the Congress has truly let us down in this crisis. People are up in arms. They are wondering how Washington could have gotten us into this mess. The trajectory continues to deteriorate, and Americans have had it. They have been bombarding congress with cries of 'just get the job done', and they are incredulous at the inability of Washington to make something happen. I'm only saying that our form of government might be at least as much to blame as our elected representatives.

I think the time has come for serious people to sit down and consider modifications to our government that would help prevent the disgrace that we have just witnessed. An important beginning would be to change the Senate rules so that it would again become a true legislative body. Just as the Catholic Church needs a Third Vatican Council to explore issues facing the Churh today, perhaps the time has come to call for a new Constitutional Convention to review our Constituion and recommend necessary changes. Perhaps those changes would be minimal, and we can only hope that this is so. In any case all issues need to be on the table, and for sure we can't expect the current members of Congress to be of any assistance in effecting any necessary changes.