One of the worst things about having a government that is dominated by two diametrically-opposed political parties is that they always have the option of blaming each other for whatever is going wrong in the country. We are seeing a lot of that right now as they point fingers over who is more responsible for our woeful financial state.
The fact that we tend to get fed up with whichever party is currently in power and turn to their opponents in hopes they will do better makes it even harder to decide which of them is more incompetent. As the years go by control of the White House and Congress swings back and forth, and each side claims that they could get things straightened out if only those miscreants on the other side of the aisle would stop mucking things up. There seems to be no way to settle the argument of which party could really do a better job governing the country.
Well, I think that I have thought of a way to settle the argument once and for all. I would like to propose that we try a little political experiment.
My idea is to give each party one of our fifty states to rule over completely. They would do things their way in this state, unopposed by their nemeses in the other party, and at the end of a predetermined period of time (maybe 10 years or so) we’d see which of these states ended up with happier citizens.
Now which state would we give each party to run? I think we should choose a state that already leans heavily toward the party that is taking it over and one that is not terribly large or populous so it will be easier to manage.
I’m thinking I’d give South Carolina to the Republicans. I lived there for eight years and it’s a pretty conservative place, but there wasn’t much to do there. They could do with some excitement.
I’d give the Democrats Massachusetts. The state gave us the Kennedy’s, after all, and this would be a good way to pay them back.
In the Republic of South Carolina taxes would be low, government entitlement programs would be non-existent, and the Ten Commandments would be displayed on the grounds of every public building. Abortion would be completely outlawed, every school day would start and with a prayer, and the borders would be very secure (thanks to a very tall fence, and possibly land mines).
Meanwhile, a huge party would be going on up in the liberal utopia of Massachusetts. Everyone (who had a job) would be paying at least 50% of their income in taxes, but no one would mind because health care, education, retirement, and nearly everything else you need would be provided by some government program. The borders would be wide open, people could marry anyone or anything they wanted, and only the really bad drugs would be illegal.
At the end of ten years we’d do extensive polling in each state and see which group of citizens was most satisfied with life under exclusive control of each party and then we’d know once and for all whose ideas are really superior. Then maybe we could put an end to all the bickering between the parties and the loser would graciously disband itself.
You’re probably wondering if I’d be interested in living in either of these trial states while the experiment was going on. The answer is a resounding “no.” My suspicion is that after ten years Massachusetts would end looking too much like Greece does right now and South Carolina might have a little too much in common with Saudi Arabia.
Instead I will have slipped off to the Florida Keys, where the Libertarians would have quietly established their own little proving ground. You’re welcome to come and join us as long as you don’t expect something for nothing and you know how to mind your own dang business.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
My endorsement in the Macon mayoral contest
It’s almost Election Day in Macon, and as usual the Telegraph will endorse its favored candidates in some of the major contests as we close in on the big event. I’ve been known to occasionally make some endorsements in this space as well, and I’ve decided to formally back one of the competitors in the Macon mayoral contest this year. But before I get to that, I should probably clarify the criteria I use when picking a candidate to lend my support to.
The editorial board of a major newspaper like the Telegraph endorses candidates who they think will best represent the interests of their constituents. As an opinion columnist, however, I have a very different agenda. I endorse the candidate who I think will be the most fun to write about should they be elected.
In order to decide who I’d most enjoy writing about, I have to calculate what I call a “goofball factor” for each competitor. There are several personality characteristics that help to increase an individual’s goofball factor. Possessing an inflated ego, having no sense of shame, and displaying an obvious contempt for one’s political opponents all help ramp up the goofball factor, and being completely oblivious to how ridiculous their actions appear to the general public really helps put an individual over the top.
Calculating this factor for each of the four Democratic candidates for mayor quickly eliminates two of them from contention for my endorsement. Paul Bronson is a political newcomer and as such he is a largely unknown quantity, but to date I am not aware of his saying or doing anything silly or outrageous so he can’t really compete for my endorsement at this point. Incumbent Robert Reichert has held the job for nearly four years and I can’t recall a single instance of him embarrassing himself or the city of Macon in all that time. He has given me virtually nothing to work, with and it’s time for him to go.
Luckily the other two candidates rate much, much higher on the goofball scale. I felt my heart skip a beat when the Honorable C. Jack Ellis announced his intention to pursue the office he previously held for eight wonderfully bizarre years. The Ellis administration was a gold mine for an opinion columnist who loves to skewer politicians. Whether he was cozying up to Hugo Chavez, conducting one of his many diplomatic missions (taxpayer-financed vacations) to exotic foreign lands, or changing his name/religion and then immediately changing them back again, Ellis was the kind of gift that keeps on giving for a snarky news columnist.
An Ellis endorsement would be a slam dunk if lovably wacky State Senator Robert Brown hadn’t thrown his hat into the ring as well and made my decision quite difficult. Brown seems to only pay his taxes when the mood strikes him and he recently made headlines when he made a statement that seemed to imply that certain local Republicans just might be members of the Ku Klux Klan.
When a predictable media firestorm erupted over this statement his idea of “softening the blow” was to call a news conference and claim that his reference to the GOP’s need for stocking up on “white sheets” was actually meant to imply that they were especially prone to sexual indiscretions. As the press conference broke up, the son of one his Brown’s best friends inexplicably roughed up a Telegraph photographer who was trying to snap a close-up of the mercurial senator. Good times.
It’s a tough call between Ellis and Brown. Ellis has a proven track record of mayoral lunacy, and it’s very tempting to stick with a known quantity. But I really have to give credit to Senator Brown, who has a stellar track record of buffoonery as a state senator and has faithfully continued his personal war on logic and humility while campaigning for mayor.
And so, considering his solid history of bizarre behavior and the air of self-importance that seems to animate his every statement, I hereby endorse Robert Brown to be the next mayor of Macon. Let’s help him bring the goofy back to the mayor’s office.
The editorial board of a major newspaper like the Telegraph endorses candidates who they think will best represent the interests of their constituents. As an opinion columnist, however, I have a very different agenda. I endorse the candidate who I think will be the most fun to write about should they be elected.
In order to decide who I’d most enjoy writing about, I have to calculate what I call a “goofball factor” for each competitor. There are several personality characteristics that help to increase an individual’s goofball factor. Possessing an inflated ego, having no sense of shame, and displaying an obvious contempt for one’s political opponents all help ramp up the goofball factor, and being completely oblivious to how ridiculous their actions appear to the general public really helps put an individual over the top.
Calculating this factor for each of the four Democratic candidates for mayor quickly eliminates two of them from contention for my endorsement. Paul Bronson is a political newcomer and as such he is a largely unknown quantity, but to date I am not aware of his saying or doing anything silly or outrageous so he can’t really compete for my endorsement at this point. Incumbent Robert Reichert has held the job for nearly four years and I can’t recall a single instance of him embarrassing himself or the city of Macon in all that time. He has given me virtually nothing to work, with and it’s time for him to go.
Luckily the other two candidates rate much, much higher on the goofball scale. I felt my heart skip a beat when the Honorable C. Jack Ellis announced his intention to pursue the office he previously held for eight wonderfully bizarre years. The Ellis administration was a gold mine for an opinion columnist who loves to skewer politicians. Whether he was cozying up to Hugo Chavez, conducting one of his many diplomatic missions (taxpayer-financed vacations) to exotic foreign lands, or changing his name/religion and then immediately changing them back again, Ellis was the kind of gift that keeps on giving for a snarky news columnist.
An Ellis endorsement would be a slam dunk if lovably wacky State Senator Robert Brown hadn’t thrown his hat into the ring as well and made my decision quite difficult. Brown seems to only pay his taxes when the mood strikes him and he recently made headlines when he made a statement that seemed to imply that certain local Republicans just might be members of the Ku Klux Klan.
When a predictable media firestorm erupted over this statement his idea of “softening the blow” was to call a news conference and claim that his reference to the GOP’s need for stocking up on “white sheets” was actually meant to imply that they were especially prone to sexual indiscretions. As the press conference broke up, the son of one his Brown’s best friends inexplicably roughed up a Telegraph photographer who was trying to snap a close-up of the mercurial senator. Good times.
It’s a tough call between Ellis and Brown. Ellis has a proven track record of mayoral lunacy, and it’s very tempting to stick with a known quantity. But I really have to give credit to Senator Brown, who has a stellar track record of buffoonery as a state senator and has faithfully continued his personal war on logic and humility while campaigning for mayor.
And so, considering his solid history of bizarre behavior and the air of self-importance that seems to animate his every statement, I hereby endorse Robert Brown to be the next mayor of Macon. Let’s help him bring the goofy back to the mayor’s office.
Losing the war on unchecked power
I could never be President. My brain is just not flexible enough to comprehend the subtle logic that’s required to make the kind of decisions our Chief Executive has to make. Take, for example, the question of when a President should involve the country in a military confrontation in a foreign land.
Being the rather simple-minded guy that I am, my first impulse would be to find out what the Constitution has to say on the issue and try and follow that. Article One, Section 8 says very plainly that the Congress has the power to declare war. It doesn’t say anything about the President having the right to declare war on anyone, so I would be off the hook on this one, right?
Apparently that is not the case. Congress has only formally declared war five times in our country’s history, and the last time it happened was World War II. I think we all know we’ve engaged in some pretty serious war-like activities a lot more than five times. Apparently Vietnam, Korea, and all of the various skirmishes we’ve had in the Middle East in the last few decades were not really wars, despite all the shooting and killing that was going on.
Presidents from both parties have sent troops into foreign lands many times without issuing a declaration of war. Congress finally got fed up with the situation during the Vietnam era and they passed the War Powers Act in 1973 to try and reign in the situation. It states that the President can’t get us into an armed conflict for more than 60 days without seeking authorization from Congress.
Unfortunately The War Powers Act hasn’t stopped our Chief Executives from continuing to involve us in undeclared wars. Most recently President Obama got us knee-deep in a civil war in Libya without getting an okay from Congress, and he’s catching some flak for it.
Congress is divided over whether or not they should be concerned about their irrelevance in the Libya situation, and the division is not completely along party lines. Some of the most liberal of the Democrats aren’t crazy about Obama’s “gun boat diplomacy”, and a smattering of Republicans are okay with his using our troops to play global sheriff, Congressional oversight be damned.
John McCain, for example, says that Republicans who oppose the Libyan campaign are “isolationists” who are being unfaithful to traditional American values. “We don’t want people needlessly slaughtered by the thousands,” says he, “if we can prevent such activity.” Seriously, John?
Anyone who has spent more than a few days on this planet knows that there are many governments who “needlessly slaughter” their own citizens every single day. Are we going to invade all of those countries too? If not, how do we decide when to spend billions of dollars and sacrifice our young men and women not because our national security is threatened, but because we want to protect innocent lives in other countries? And why is it that we seem to value human life more in Libya than we do in Syria, or China, or Rwanda?
My simplistic view is that if we get attacked or if some unexpected emergency occurs in a foreign land the President should have some latitude to engage our military on a moment’s notice for a time-limited basis. But the Constitution and the War Powers Act wisely restrict the executive branch from committing us to long-term, premeditated military conflicts on the whim of a single man. Or they would, if more people in Washington cared about obeying the law.
The whole separation of powers thing only works if all the parties involved follow the rules. The executive branch of our government has accumulated way too much unchecked power in recent times, and I’m willing to bet that none of the 2012 Presidential candidates are going to offer to cede any of that power back to Congress if they should win the office they seek.
Being the rather simple-minded guy that I am, my first impulse would be to find out what the Constitution has to say on the issue and try and follow that. Article One, Section 8 says very plainly that the Congress has the power to declare war. It doesn’t say anything about the President having the right to declare war on anyone, so I would be off the hook on this one, right?
Apparently that is not the case. Congress has only formally declared war five times in our country’s history, and the last time it happened was World War II. I think we all know we’ve engaged in some pretty serious war-like activities a lot more than five times. Apparently Vietnam, Korea, and all of the various skirmishes we’ve had in the Middle East in the last few decades were not really wars, despite all the shooting and killing that was going on.
Presidents from both parties have sent troops into foreign lands many times without issuing a declaration of war. Congress finally got fed up with the situation during the Vietnam era and they passed the War Powers Act in 1973 to try and reign in the situation. It states that the President can’t get us into an armed conflict for more than 60 days without seeking authorization from Congress.
Unfortunately The War Powers Act hasn’t stopped our Chief Executives from continuing to involve us in undeclared wars. Most recently President Obama got us knee-deep in a civil war in Libya without getting an okay from Congress, and he’s catching some flak for it.
Congress is divided over whether or not they should be concerned about their irrelevance in the Libya situation, and the division is not completely along party lines. Some of the most liberal of the Democrats aren’t crazy about Obama’s “gun boat diplomacy”, and a smattering of Republicans are okay with his using our troops to play global sheriff, Congressional oversight be damned.
John McCain, for example, says that Republicans who oppose the Libyan campaign are “isolationists” who are being unfaithful to traditional American values. “We don’t want people needlessly slaughtered by the thousands,” says he, “if we can prevent such activity.” Seriously, John?
Anyone who has spent more than a few days on this planet knows that there are many governments who “needlessly slaughter” their own citizens every single day. Are we going to invade all of those countries too? If not, how do we decide when to spend billions of dollars and sacrifice our young men and women not because our national security is threatened, but because we want to protect innocent lives in other countries? And why is it that we seem to value human life more in Libya than we do in Syria, or China, or Rwanda?
My simplistic view is that if we get attacked or if some unexpected emergency occurs in a foreign land the President should have some latitude to engage our military on a moment’s notice for a time-limited basis. But the Constitution and the War Powers Act wisely restrict the executive branch from committing us to long-term, premeditated military conflicts on the whim of a single man. Or they would, if more people in Washington cared about obeying the law.
The whole separation of powers thing only works if all the parties involved follow the rules. The executive branch of our government has accumulated way too much unchecked power in recent times, and I’m willing to bet that none of the 2012 Presidential candidates are going to offer to cede any of that power back to Congress if they should win the office they seek.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
