Broken Thumb Blog

O My God!

I saw on aol.com that the President gave an interview to ABCNews where he indicated that this election will not be "about" him.

Pardon my rather unpatriotic use of the French language when I say, "C'est Bullshit!"

While I realize this is merely a last-ditch tactic employed by the White House to salvage its dignity in anticipation of pending electoral defeat, it's also the dumbest thing the man has ever said. All the other dumb comments can at least be attributed to a general ignorance and/or a willful ignorance. But the man knows politics. It's probably the only thing he knows as well as lighting bongs and doing kegstands.

The President is head of party. He controls its agenda. He controls its actions. For years, his White House has even decided who runs for Congress in most all races. The man's administration has even threatened to withdraw access and support from anyone (bureaucrats, politicians, lobbyists) who opposed his will.

This election is all about him. Every vote cast, and even those not cast, will be a reflection of public sentiment on the administration. The American people are eager for a little political restraint of the White House. Nearly six years of single-party rule has reminded them why the architects of the capital housed Congress and the President at opposite ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. When the politicians forget this, when they disregard their duties to balance the authority exercised at the polar ends of that axis, when they collude to destroy the Constitution, and when they yield to the seductions of unlimited power then they all share the same fate.

Thank God that the American people, who themselves are not always the smartest, are wise to this president and disagree about what's being decided in this election.

A few months back I did a podcast with Mollie Bradley-Martin who blogs at www.liberalgirlnextdoor.com.

I regularly read her blog because I'm open-minded, and because she's a good writer. I like her style.

Yesterday, she quoted the Declaration of Independence and attempted to draw a parallel between the situation faced by the colonists (absolute subjugation of their entire political heritage by the King of England) and the current political situation faced by Republicans (remaining loyal to a party that has shown how absolutely power corrupts).

I'm okay with her selective quoting of the Declaration. I mean who really wants to hear the founding fathers gripe against the King for preventing our expansion into the Western frontier? Or how he confounded proto-globalization by refusing to tolerate piracy?

I would like to just offer up a little opinion on the matter.

The problem with Mollie's analogy is that Jefferson offered people an option to their political ails -- leave the Empire. For Republicans who are disenchanted with their party, there is nowhere else to go. They certainly won't be turning out in force for the Democrats. At most, Republicans will stay home on election day. Any Democratic victory will therefore be the result of Apathy 2.0.

And should some Republicans "declare their independence", as Mollie advocates, the result would not be a stronger Democratic Party but a weaker one. Those who would leave the Republican Party are socially moderate, fiscally conservative, pro-business types. The platform of this new party would include support of gay marriage but not of universal health care. It would support a woman's right to choose, but not federal funding of clinics providing abortions.

If these GOP revolutionaries formed a new party it would siphon a large number of Democrats who are in the Blue simply because they don't consider themselves (and won't affiliate with) Republican moralists. The new political reality would be the Religious Right, the Liberal Left, and the Moderate Majority.

Mollie might not want to push so hard for a Republican Revolt if her dream is for Liberal Left America.

Yesterday's blog may seem at odds with the one from the day before. A little clarification may help.

I believe that the public is ultimately responsible for the behavior of its Congresspeople. Such is the curse of a democratic republic; we get the government we elect.

Bad behavior by congressional representatives is nothing new. Nor will it go away. However, it is silly for national indignation to be heaped on the leadership of the House or the Republican Party for this Foley situation. It should be directed at the people of Palm Beach who returned this man to Washington term after term after term. They did the country a disservice in not investigating the character of this pathetic lecher. It warns that we should all be more conscientious about the votes we cast and the representation we choose.

I think Foley should have told the whole country to take a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut. I think he should have stood for re-election. I likewise think the people of Palm Beach should have been given the opportunity to publicly shame him with a resounding trouncing at the polls. Instead he was able to resign, to fade into rehab and history, and to allow the Republicans in South Florida to field an alternate candidate.

We should hold our representatives to higher standards. They reflect our society. They should show off our nobler selves rather than our baser urges. And while they have a responsibility to look after the dignity of our public offices, we have a responsibility to look after them. When they fail to uphold the public trust, we must withdraw it.

But for the entire 2006 election to turn on this one issue, is sad. It's also indicative of the people's abdication of their duty to the republic--namely to be informed and ever vigilant of their government.