I recently received an email from one of my readers. He asked me to please stop referring to political figures as “leaders”. He said that he votes for “representatives” and not “leaders”.
You know what? He’s absolutely right.
About 250 years ago, this country was founded behind the rallying cry of “no taxation without representation”. The cry wasn’t “no taxation without leadership”. And we have a “House of Representatives” and not a “House of Leaders”.
These elected Representatives are supposed to “represent” the will of the people who live in whatever Gerrymandered geographic area they’ve managed to have defined. They’re supposed to represent everyone, not just the people who voted for them. And they’re certainly not supposed to lead anyone.
So, when did this all change?
I’ll tell you when. It’s when elected officials stopped referring to themselves as “in office” and started referring to themselves as “in power”. What the people in Washington seem to have forgotten is that they are Public Servants. They serve us. Not the other way around.
So, when elected officials starts talking about “their constituents”, I start to have a problem. They are my elected representatives, but I’m not their anything. Now, combine their belief that they are “in power” and their belief that we are all somehow subservient to them, and we end up where we are now. And that’s with the people we elected to do what we want, doing whatever the hell they want.
Here in California, the process for election primaries is what’s called “voter-nominated”. What happens is that all candidates for an office are placed on a single primary ballot. The top two vote-getters in the primary go on the ballot in November. This doesn’t apply to the Presidential election, but it does apply to the election of all state officials and U.S. Representatives and Senators.
So, this means that it’s entirely possible that the two candidates that I have to choose from for any office are both Liberal. Of course, it’s possible that both candidates could be Conservative too. But who are we kidding? This is California.
Come November, there are six districts here in California where voters only have the option of choosing between two Democratic candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives. You want to talk about voter disenfranchisement? While technically, Conservatives in those districts will have representation, there is nobody they can vote for who will represent what they believe in. For all practical purposes, Conservatives in those districts have no voice.
How likely is it that any Conservative person who can only choose from Liberal candidates is going to even bother to cast their vote? I’d say not very.
Fun Fact: Out of 52 Congressional districts here in California, more than 10% of them will offer only Democratic candidates in November. But not one of them will offer only Republican candidates.
Now, this wouldn’t be a huge issue if the people who end up in Washington didn’t end up going bat-shit crazy as soon as they get there. But they nearly always do.
I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again. Regardless of how pure-of-heart a candidate is, the very instant they get elected, their heart becomes a little less pure. Because from that point forward, their primary goal is to keep their job. So, they become less interested in representing the people, and more interested in chasing whatever represents their best chance of being reelected.
You’ve heard the saying, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely?” It’s like that. And yes, while Jean Luc Picard did say those words, he wasn’t the first. The quote comes from a guy called John Edward Acton back in 1887.
So, what happens nearly 100% of the time is that elected officials start to forget that they’re “public servants” and start to think of themselves as “in power” instead of “in office”. When that happens, they become at least a little corrupt, and start to put their own interests ahead of the people they’re supposed to be representing.
In my ideal world, which I admit I rarely get to live in, I wouldn’t have to care if my Representatives are Liberal or Conservative. Because in my ideal world, we’d elect people who are able to objectively consider situations, are quick to understand the core important issues, and can make decisions based on facts, logic and reason. While their personal beliefs will undoubtedly sway their opinion, it shouldn’t be the only thing they base their decisions on.
When I see AOC, and 16 other members of Congress, going non-liner and joining protests against the Supreme Court’s recent abortion ruling, I see 17 Representatives who aren’t thinking clearly. I don’t believe that because they were supporting abortion, I believe that because if they’re getting themselves detained during mostly peaceful protests, then they are in no way thinking dispassionately. Which means that they’ve thrown logic and reason right out the window.
Also in my ideal world, representatives would possess character beyond reproach. I’d love to live in a world where we could point to our elected officials as examples of someone to strive to be. But that never happens.
I believe our elected officials should perform their duties without a hint of impropriety. That would be great. Wouldn’t it?
Well, they got it partly right. Lawyers being lawyers, they simply twisted our expectations to something that better fits their ambitions. Instead of keying off the words “without impropriety”, they chose to place the emphasis on the word “hint”. So, instead of a hint of impropriety, they demonstrate in-your-face impropriety. I guess they figure that as long as their improprieties are obvious, it’s no big deal.
Which is how we end up with Paul Pelosi making financial trades worth millions using inside information he could have only gotten from his wife, Nancy Pelosi. And how Eric Swalwell could be literally sleeping with the enemy. OK, probably not literally sleeping. There probably wasn’t a lot of sleeping going on while he was screwing the brains out of a Chinese spy, while he was a member of the Select Committee on Intelligence.
It’s also how we end up with retired Congressmen getting high-paid jobs as lobbyists or getting even higher-paid jobs as board members of companies they were supposedly regulating not too long ago. And it’s how we’ve ended up with a President who is quite likely taking bribes from the Chinese in order to keep his drug-addicted, pedophile son out of prison.
Or maybe not. Maybe all of these things have simple, non-hinky explanations. But it shouldn’t matter. Because it should never be an issue in the first place. And it wouldn’t be if our elected officials possessed characters beyond reproach and acted without even a hint of impropriety.
I didn’t vote for a single person supposedly representing me in my State government, the House, the Senate or the White House. Not a single one.
If I were living in my ideal world, that wouldn’t matter. Because if I lived in my ideal world, I could be assured that they were elected not for their own personal beliefs, but because they possess the ability to make decisions based on facts while using logic and reason.
But I don’t live in my ideal world. And the people that were elected have less ability to think rationally than a jellyfish. And instead of representing everyone, they represent only those who they believe will get them reelected or make them rich.
Which doesn’t include me.
Which means that I don’t have anyone looking out for my best interests. And yet I’m still expected to pay taxes.
Which brings us back to where this whole thing started nearly 250 years ago. We’re back to “taxation without representation”.
Well, at least for some of us.
Hey! You can now support PonkaBlog while getting some cool merch! Checkout the PonkaBlog Market and get your tee-shirt, hoodie or other stylish merchandise with the PonkaBlog logo.
