The Republican Party elected members to congress presently decide for themselves how they will vote on any legislation. They may get advice from any number of sources, but it is their call how they will vote. This represents a lot of power invested in the one individual. Let’s see how they were elected in the first place.
As they campaign, they tell us what they intend to do if and when elected. That’s it. There’s no contract with us, the people who elect them. There is no guarantee of any sort that they will do one thing they said that they would do, once they gain office. The same is true of the political party which represents them: there’s no guarantee of any sort that the party or it’s sitting members of congress will adhere to any of their stated principles.
As we conservatives have seen to our dismay and to the detriment of our country, this is far too much power, placed in too few hands with far too little control. Members of congress can be compromised in many ways. What if a member is blackmailed because of sexual indiscretions of one sort or another which, if made known, would threaten his office, his marriage and his personal finances? What if he had taken a bribe and was suffering from extortion as a result? Is it possible that a member of congress could have his vote on a given issue influenced by people in possession of such information? What if the member of congress had a drinking problem? Would he be an easy target for such a setup? What control does his electorate have over the congressman who fails to live up to his campaign promises or his political party’s principles? What control does his party have over that individual?
It would seem that party rules need to change in order to minimize the possibility and the effect of such a situation. That is, we may never know why a given member of congress will vote, negotiate or otherwise act out of the bounds of his party’s principles, but we certainly have seen it happen! The problem lies in the party structure and the nature of the relationship between the party and the elected member of congress. It is simply foolish to rely purely on the statements made by a person seeking the power of congressional office in order to win that office. Why wouldn’t he say whatever he thought was necessary to win such power and prestige? This may seem to be a cynical view, but ask yourself, do you think anyone’s ever done that in your lifetime? Perhaps it’s not so much “if”, but rather a question of “how many times?” And once elected, where’s the leash? Where’s the control necessary to keep that member of congress true to his statements, his electorate and true to his party’s principles? There is none!
It’s past time for the Republican Party to adopt new rules, whereby the party itself decides on policy for all major issues. This would happen in state and national councils set up for that purpose. To keep the policy-making body separate from the voting members of congress, the party should rule that no member of a policy council, past or present, may run for office under the party’s aegis. Under this arrangement, all policy decisions would be handed down to all the party’s members of congress and they would vote in accordance with those decisions, always. As for new legislation, there would be no legislation introduced by any party member without the prior approval of the policy councils within the party.
Members of congress failing to comply by introducing their own bills without prior party approval or who vote in opposition to the party dictates, would be expelled from the party. There would be no second chances or consideration given for time in office, seniority or any other factor. Expulsion would be automatic.
With such rules in place, although there would be no absolute guarantee that a member of congress would remain uncompromised or remain true to his party and his electorate, it would provide for his expulsion if he did not, with the likely result that he would not win re-election. There would thus be a powerful inducement to stay in line. The great, great benefit in such a scheme is that when we in the electorate now vote for a member of congress from this party, we will know that they will adhere to the party platform. In this way too, the party can also be explicit in what it aims to achieve in both the short and long terms. They can put in writing for all to see, what exactly their legislative and policy goals will be on every issue. As things stand, the party really cannot put in concrete terms what they intend to do because every one of those in elected office decides for himself what he will do and that’s frequently outside of what the larger party stands for! This is ridiculous!
As a part of this arrangement, the current practice of registered lobbyists calling on individual members of congress would cease. For example, a “deal” was reached recently in the fiscal cliff mess which also featured tax concessions and special treatment for numerous specific industries! How does any of this benefit the American people? What politician ran on a platform of “I want tax concessions for Hollywood, for algae growers, rum producers…” and etc.? No one ran on that, but there it is. Lobbyists got to individuals.
The proper relationship between these various industries and other interests is with the larger party, not with the few individual members of congress. The party councils should be entertaining any lobbyist and the party councils should decide who, if anyone, gets special concessions to do this or that. This larger body of people would also be far more difficult to sway or corrupt than a single individual or individuals. It would be difficult for a lobbyist to hide bribes or other “trades” to several bodies made up of numerous members.
By de-personalizing our party – whichever party that is, or becomes – we can greatly increase our control. By “de-personalizing”, taking the focus off the smiling, handshaking individual is the aim and putting it on the larger party instead. The person in office, while enjoying all the perks and prestige of that office, now becomes a party policy instrument and not a decision-maker in that policy. With political goals established by the party, with our constitution as a base of reference and then put into a publicly available agenda, we can truly know who and what we are voting for, because it will be the party controlling those people after they have been elected.
For all of our lives, we have voted for a smile, a handshake, a deep part in the hair, the appearance of sincerity and vague promises. Then we look on in despair as we see things fall apart. It doesn’t have to be that way. Let’s change the rules.
Jeff Dover
January 2, 2013
Comment
Comment by Donald Ford on January 7, 2013 at 1:20pm Jeff - Why do we need another layer of political bureaucracy between the people and government?? If the people will not enforce their right to recall elected officials, another layer of political officials is not going to cure the problem. More government (or layers of party politics) always results in more oppression of freedom - especially when that government (or layers) is manned by immoral people. Without a reformation of the CHARACTER of this nation, no organization, or layers of organization, is going to be able to change our current political atmosphere and situation. This nation was set up to operate through a moral people, and is totally unsuited for any other. No kind of political organization, or layers of organization, is able to overcome a corrupt moral foundation. This country is LOST unless we can reestablish its Christian Moral Foundation. Communism (which your idea inches us closer too) has all kinds of layers of 'bureaucratic' influence (from the 'President' to the street-corner snitch) on a culture, but no Communist country has ever proven successful in reforming government for the betterment and freedom of the general population. I realize it's not in your plan, but Character Reformation is the answer - not political party reform.
Comment by Al Premo on January 5, 2013 at 6:07pm Good Luck Jeff, Hope you can show and lead us sheeples the way! Shall we have more of a balanced approach as our savior suggest? Who's balanced approach? Bipartisanship his way? He is a communist and will not stop his agenda nor will the progressives in congress, nor our supreme court. Just how do we stop them? Republicans can't and it don't seem bothered much and appears to me many are happy with status quo. Someone reelected him again and I ask can YOU change their minds peacefully? Hitler took away the guns and then look what happen to Germany. I think we have already lost our country , feels and looks like to me. I"ll bet our children and grandchildren are going to feel the same way. Sure hope your right however!! 16 Trillion in debit, Really?
Comment by Jeff Dover on January 5, 2013 at 4:19pm Oh, and while I'm at it, I don't believe that we'll either "lose our country" or require armed conflict. We can settle things without either of those occurences.
Comment by Jeff Dover on January 5, 2013 at 4:17pm This proposal does nothing which does not presently exist. It just does it better and enforces the agenda. It would apply to the party's candidates in state legislatures, as well.
There is no "quick fix" of the constitution here because the constitution is not involved, Donald. I asked you before to point out where the constitution would be involved. I haven't seen your response yet...
In the final analysis, ladies and gentlemen, a political party is only a means to an end, not an end in itself. It is only a means of obtaining policy by banding together a voting bloc of people who are in agreement on main points of governance. The legislative policy is the end. How they vote in congress is the end.
What we have now is a band of people who lead us to believe they agree with us on major points, win office on their promises and then back away from those points at critical junctures. There's also a raft of bad legislation on the books from the past. Ever hear anyone suggest that it be repealed? Only Obamacare that I am aware of, and nothing's happening with that.
We need a party to represent us and a means of insuring that we are represented as we wish to be represented -- not as they feel like representing us, after they take office. That is not the way things stand.
Comment by Donald Ford on January 5, 2013 at 3:38pm Jeff Dover, I just don't believe adding another layer of people between us and the operations of government would be a healthy change - corruption breeds corruption. Any political party (or a new or reformed one) should operate under the direct representation and state representation established in the Constitution. The system you suggest is placing another layer of political bureaucracy between the people and the protection of the freedoms installed in the Constitution. Both parties (or more) should be forced to abide by the three branches of government (and only three). What you propose, installs a fourth branch (within the party), further separating the people (the voters) from government (as yet another 'layer' is corrupted and bribed). It may take a physical revolution, but I believe we should simply enforce the Constitution we already have instead of trying yet another 'quick fix'. It is impossible to purify a poisoned drink by adding another dash of poison to it: Simplicity, instead of more complexity. I just don't trust politicians and bureaucrats, and putting in another layer of them in the governing process would be a mistake. Simply enforce the system we have (recalls, etc.).
Reforming the CHARACTER of the people (and thus the politicians) is by far the best solution, but that is foundational and will take longer than a quick political "fix". I don't know if we have that much time before our country is lost forever.
Comment by Jeff Dover on January 5, 2013 at 8:46am Donald Ford, where in anything I've said is there any implication of changing our constitutional form of government? Please point it out for the rest of us. I find it odd that on the one hand, you recognize elements of similarity with the old CPSU, but don't seem to understand the relationship between the political parties and the constitution of your own country! Obviously, you've studied politics. Are you simply against this sort of effective, disciplined and honest change, but don't want to state the real reasons for your disagreement?
We need to change the behavior of one political party -- the Republican Party -- or replace it if it cannot be changed. The party, like a country club, can changes its rules as it see fit.
The constitution is our rock. That remains unchanged. The change to the party is to prevent the constitution from being trashed and marginalized, as is presently the case, as well as to allow those of us who vote a person into office to have a strong measure of certainty that that person will actually behave according to the known dictates of sound management and according to the agenda his constituents elected him to pursue.
Comment by Mary Vaughan on January 4, 2013 at 9:36pm Jeff, you took the words right out of my mouth. Well written. And Gary Given, your idea of including a type of polling is a great suggestion, or at least a gateway to opportunity to a better process. I have always felt that the "closed door" meetings that Congress holds, are just too fishy. Obamacare is a fine example of "keeping us in the dark". When Pelosi said they couldn't tell us what was in the program until it went through, every single person in this country should have stood up and screamed no. We have been complacent for too long! No one in our government should be making ANY deals without the American people being aware of such. As Jeff mentions, and we have seen over and over, a politician can make all the promises in the world to get elected. And I believe that a certain amount really do believe in what they promise and have good intentions to help the nation, but by the time they get in the "big boy seats" everything changes; and Jeff mentioned some very viable reasons. People put in powerful positions, more often than not, abuse their powers. The government wants more and more accountability from the citizens when, in fact, we should be requesting the accountability from THEM. Their position of serving the constituants flip-flopped a LONG time ago and now it looks more like a corrupt business then a government, and the American people are suffering. Let's exercise our rights while we still have them. We need to speak out louder and enlighten those misinformed and uninformed people as to what is happening and where this country is headed. As I have witnessed on the thousands of blogs I have read over the past several months, arguing and blaming does not work; those two things should be reserved for the liberals :o). But what I have found that does work is SIMPLE rational words at a lay-man's level to really get the message across. As soon as someone feels "attacked" in any way, they shut down and become defensive. Those people that are simply hateful should be ignored. This is a time for focus, focus, focus. There is no time to waste. This is our country. It doesn't matter what your background, race, sexual orientation or personal issues are, let's all come together as simply AMERICANS and restore our country to the great nation it started as. This is our time to expand on the system our founding fathers put in place and put even more safe guards in so that we do not have to ever fear from socialism or communism existing in our country.
Comment by Donald Ford on January 3, 2013 at 3:34pm Gary Given, you have a good idea.
Jeff Dover, you are still advocating changing our Constitutional form of government. I reject that concept. Once we open it up for official change, it is too easy for present corruption to infiltrate (officially). Leave the Constitution along and just form a new party around it with severe in-party penalties for voting against Constitutional principles.
Comment by Gary Given on January 3, 2013 at 4:55am How about this for a rule change; We now have the technology to poll constituents on each and every thing that comes up before Congress. Why not set up a polling website in each district, poll the people on those bills, and strongly encourage the representative to vote the way of his constituency? Although not binding, it would give more voice to the people and establish a record of transparency for "the people" to examine any time they wanted to.
Comment by Jeff Dover on January 2, 2013 at 6:46pm Donald Ford, I agree there are similarities to the old Soviet system I studied at length. However, they did not have our constitution which their players had to answer to. Neither did they have a multi-party system featuring other factions which were able to compete with and possibly overpower their wishes and edicts. Theirs was a single,monolithic party which brooked no objection.
Far from any Soviet abomination to human existence, the party I envision is formed with American conservative values and an agenda based on those and our constitution as its basis -- exactly what is missing in our political life today. This party would enforce those things. It is those things which the elected members of our party would need to abide by and which would be posted for all voters to see before they ever went to the polls. We don't need to study or agonize over what works economically: lower taxes equals increased prosperity, which equals higher overall tax revenue. We don't need to find out if it makes sense to spend less than you take in. We don't need to wonder if we should find and promote energy exploration and production domestically -- see my conservative agenda post written a week or so ago for some possible points we could all agree on.
This is a Tea Party website. The tea party were revolutionaries committed to changing the way things were done, committed to changing the prevailing orthodoxy, because what was being done no longer served them. That's what's happening here. Think outside the box and act, or keep sliding Left.
© 2013 Created by Judson Phillips.
You need to be a member of Tea Party Nation to add comments!
Join Tea Party Nation