Interesting to listen to soon-to-be-former Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi recently.
He gave a little reminder of basic civics lesson for a Republic.
State-wide elections - including governor - were Tuesday, Nov 8, in Mississippi. Barbour, who has done the maximum two terms and so isn't running again, told a crowd in Jackson something along the lines of "I don't care who you vote for - no, that's not right. Everyone knows I'm a Republican, so I do have a preference. But what I do want is for everyone, regardless of party, to get out and vote."
Then Barbour told an interesting story about his first election as governor.
"When I won, running against the incumbent, the incumbent got 10,000 more votes than he'd gotten in the previous election when he won,'' Barbour said.
Barbour went on to say that kind of turn-out was good for him, and for Mississippi. It showed participation, and gave him as the new governor a good indication of what his mandate for office was going to be.
Essentially, what Barbour reminded me of was that numbers of votes matter. If a candidate wins by an landslide, he can be sure he has an overwhelming support for his positions and platform. He can enter office with confidence.
Likewise, if he wins by a narrow margin - and there is a large turnout of voters - the elected official knows his constituency is somewhat divided and that should help guide him going forward.
We do not live in a Democracy, where every citizen votes on every law or amendment that comes up. Such a government is unwieldy and inefficient.
We live in a Republic.
- - - - -
It's easy to forget that our government really was one founded on ideas. Nothing like it - at least in terms of scope - had ever been tried before. Parts of it, yes; and maybe smaller versions of the bigger picture.
But for most of the world's history, the power of government either belonged to those who could take it and control the people being ruled, or it belonged to those who inherited (from someone who, somewhere in the past, had demonstrated the ability to take the power and hold on).
Then came this great idea hammered out by a variety of 'thinkers' back in the late 1700s. One of their most revolutionary ideas was to turn the idea of power in government upside down with the notion that power should rest not in institutions but in individuals. No nation had ever embraced human equality and God-given individual rights as fundamental to organizing the rule of law; never had a nation recognized the sovereignty of the citizen over that of the government.
Before this, all governments' power rested either in the "divine right of kings," or else the authority that comes from brute force against the people being ruled.
But in America, the individual has always mattered above all. Power is to reside in the individual, not the government - but individuals do temporarily, and with conditions and limitations, give power to the government for the purpose of maintaining social order, the public good, and national defense.
That's just one reason why the "group think" of socialism and communism and even many in this country considered "liberal" just doesn't work. When you become concerned about "groups" of people, you lose sight of individuals.
And by looking out for the rights of 'groups,' you inevitably cripple the individual, who becomes a nameless, faceless part of that group.
For example, there is nothing wrong with saying we're going to provide a certain level of income for widows or single mothers who are having trouble taking care of their children. That's a great idea, in general.
But when you start to look at the idea in carried out individually, you see that it has had the case of causing generations to believe that's the best standard of living they can hope for; the standard they even come to depend on. And so while the bigger "group" might be build up, individual parts of that group are crippled.
How else can you explain that the number of people in this country living below what we call the poverty level has actually increased since the government declared its "War on Poverty" in the 1960s? With all the trillions spend in aid and education, shouldn't we be seeing results in terms of fewer people in poverty?
But we don't.
And I've addressed the "group vs. the individual'' concept previously, here (and the sub-link inside that link).
This is why we should always have a healthy dose of skepticism about government, while realizing the form of our government remains the best man has been able to come up with.
It just needs a return to basics.
-----------
We keep hearing this concept of "justice'' in our politicians and protesters. Even so-called conservatives buy into ideas like "economic justice."
And while I'm all for justice when it comes to dealing with individuals, this country is not and never has been about "economic justice."
This country has always been about "economic opportunity."
-------------------------------
I recently had a conversation with an ardent supporter of President Obama. I asked him why, and he came back with "why not?"
That's not much of an answer, of course. We discussed it for awhile, and he told me that President Obama had not had any support from Congress. I pointed out that for two years, the President had a Democratically controlled Congress. He said even so, the President still didn't have support, that Obama's motto was not "Yes I Can!" but "Yes We Can!"
Eventually - and with great political incorrectness, I admit - I told him that in 1976, my first Presidential election, I voted for Jimmy Carter because Carter was from Georgia (as I was) and I really wanted to see a Georgian become President!
Even more than that, for years after (sometimes to this day) I still defend Carter.
So I absolutely understand when black Americans, or African-Americans, want to support President Obama. They rightfully take great pride in seeing someone who looks like them in the position of being the head of the government. I would expect no less.
However, that also doesn't work.
See, the point of self-government is not to be a venue to express love for the president. The point of self-government is to be able to work toward programs that can bring Americans together to get something good for the entire country.
For most of us, our self-government is limited to the act of voting.
So for the Constitutions' sake, let's not forget that.
It's one clear voice that politicians understand.
No comments:
Post a Comment