by 
Every party does it. Once a party gets control of a branch of government– let alone every branch of government– the party that just got into power is overwhelming concerned about keeping that power. In some ways this is good. It allows for moderate government to prevail, and usually it’s the case that the country is split, not totally supporting one view or the other.
However, it also produces a clouding of policy and opinion.
The Tempering Effect of Reelection
The problem with having a once strong partisan take a middle ground for expediency is that the partisan still holds the views that he had before he was elected, he’s just now tempering his views to hold onto power so that he can incrementally make his changes over time.
It’s the old frog in the pot scenario– where it’s easier for any group trying to exact radical change to perform that change slowly such that when the change happens the people will not know how it happened to them.
Healthcare, the Perfect Example
As early as the New Deal it was determined that the way to get America into a socialist nation was through passing a some major policy initiatives that would give the government complete control of our lives. It started with income tax, went to Social Security and the last pillar would be health care.
When then First Lady Hillary Clinton tried to enact a Heath Care Takeover back in the 90s, the people rejected it. That doesn’t mean the idea went away, it was just repackaged such that it’s come back with a vengeance– repackaged to get passage, and now having liberals suggesting that it should take on the characteristics of HillaryCare.
Inner Trembling
Whereas I believe that the House is willing to go through with the most liberal bill possible, I don’t think the Senate is totally prepared for it. Both houses of Congress realize that there are parts of this plan that the American people do not want– or could grossly miss-fire.
For example, should this bill pass and premiums skyrocket in cost, the American people will have the heads of their representatives– and the 1994 revolution will look like child’s play. If it turns out that many insurance companies go under because a cap is put in place, and people start seeing that they cannot get the service they used to get under the old plan, it’ll be really bad for the Democrats.
And yet, this is where the people that we elected to represent us believe that we should go. They fear that we are not as wise or smart as they are, and that our opinions of things are so childish– they believe we do not understand the big scope, and they are acting beneficially for us!
My Radical Approach
And this is the reason that I wish that we could have a button to kick every single elected official out of office as soon as their term expires (if not sooner) to be replaced by people that are in the private sector. Any person currently holding elected office should not be eligible to hold another elected office until spending time in the private sector equal to the amount of time of a term of the office they’re seeking.
The people we elect need to know how we think, need to get in touch with regular people again, to face the problems that we face and get back with the values that we have– those that make up our national identity.
Let’s put some better fear in our leaders– a fear that they will have to live under what they create, rather than living better. That they will be held responsible for the policies that they create, and that they can be removed if they fail to represent the people.
And please, can we stop the gerrymandering– clear all congressional districts and draw simple ones that cover rectangular areas such that the people that we send actually represent us instead of constructing districts that always send the same party/person.
I feel that my representative is very much “in touch” with how I think and feel regarding policy, as are both of my senators. How does that fit into your grand plan? Or do we just get rid of the ones who aren’t “in touch” with your exact worldview?
A current poll shows that only 38% of the country is in favor of health care reform as they see their government creating, and yet that same government believes that they have to have health care reform now.
The problem I’m addressing in this post is not policy, per se, but the lack of accountability our elected officials have to the people that put them in office. And it’s not just something that I’m addressing– it’s well acknowledged that our elected officials will listen more to lobbyists and their party bosses than they will the people that they represent.
By stating that this has anything to do with my worldview tells me that you didn’t actually read what I read. My proposal says that all elected leaders need to have what amounts to term limits where they all– regardless of worldview– need to be done at the end of the term and replaced by people that work in non-elected office so that they actually are in touch with the people.
This could mean that, like you, they still hold the same policy beliefs of the bureaucrats they replace or they might not. What it should mean is that they actually have a background where they know what it means to working families and their paychecks.
The fact that these representatives don’t have to live under some of the laws and programs they create, that they are guaranteed the salary that they get regardless of what happens (at that they vote for their own pay raises) means to me that they don’t have an appropriate understanding of what the American people are going through, and it’s not effecting them personally.