Elected Office

Hey everybody, I wrote this a while ago, but I think it still applies. It is not Africa related, but feel free to read it if you would like!

Elected offices attract the worst sort of people. The really intelligent never want to be elected because they would rather be out making better money, doing research or running their own businesses. Nor does elected office attract the visionary. Visionaries have little patience with an environment choked with red tape. And elected offices are certainly not the place to find the patriotic. Patriots are men and women of principle, and principle is the one thing elected office simply will not abide.

So who, besides just saying “the worst sort of people,” is attracted to elected office? Simply put, the opportunistic. Those that are willing to change their position over and over are the only ones flexible enough to get elected, and then re-elected time and time again.

If your red flags have not gone up already, they should have. You should be asking yourself, does not America have elected offices? Do not Americans pride themselves on seeking out just and honorable men and women to fill their positions?

Whatever you may think the answer to that question is, the real answer is “no.” America, despite what the pledge of allegiance every elementary school student repeats each morning, is a democracy. And, the last thing democracies want are constant, honorable men and women to lead them. In fact, the members of democracies don't want to be lead at all: they want to lead. Democracies want leaders that do what they are told. Thus we return to our original point: smart people, visionary people, even patriotic people, do not want to be told what to do. Only the opportunistic are willing to be told what to do over and over or to take positions they do not like or know nothing about.

Tocqueville called this constant capitulation by elected leaders the 'tyranny of the majority.' When the people say jump, politicians jump. In fact, the really good ones try to jump before the people tell them to in order to be mistaken as visionary. The tyranny of the majority, therefore, results in just this: if a politician wants to get re-elected, to keep his or her job and all the prestige that comes with it, he or she must do what is popular. It does not matter if what is popular conflicts with their personal views of what is right or wrong, even if those views are based on evidence or reasoning not available in the formation of popular opinion. It does not even matter if popular opinion conflicts with what is truly in the best interests of the people they serve. If they want to keep their jobs, politicians listen to what 51% of their constituents say and then vote accordingly.

“This is all true,” you might say, “but it is ultimately preferable to the alternative. Remember kings? Remember taxation without representation? Remember the 'tyranny of the few?'”

I do. I remember that countless generations have struggled under despotic kings and aristocracies, and that many still do. But just because our tyranny is imposed by 51% of the people instead of .01% or 3% of the people does not make it any better. And, what it does do is make those in power, the tyrants if you will, a lot less effective in dealing with real problems when they come along. While it is true that a king might over tax his people, execute his opponents and demand droit de seigneur from their daughters, it is also true that he mobilizes his armies much faster to defend his people when his nation is under attack.

Debates over the costs and benefits of a king, however, are not my central argument. What is my central argument, is that as our political system now stands we consistently elect representatives that fail to make any significant progress on the most pressing issues we face. Think about it. The cost of healthcare, rising energy costs, terrorism and education are not new problems. They have existed since the beginning of this nation. Nor has there been, or is there now a lack of solutions to these problems. What is lacking is a majority in our government that will take action to solve these problems one way or the other. Instead, we get half-way compromises cobbled together from a multitude of ideas that, while they might put off the day of reckoning now, ultimately create more problems than they solve. Examples? The 3/5ths compromise, the Missouri compromise, the Treaty of Versailles, the New Deal and, recently, Obama care.

So, what exactly is the solution to this long-lived problem? How do we get our representatives to vote for viable solutions when we ourselves, as a ceaselessly shifting majority on which they depend for re-election, are constantly changing our directives to them?

Well, I'll tell you the answer you hear most often: “Kick the bums out! Take back Washington! Elect leaders that will do what we tell them to!” Heard it before? Said it before?? We all have. But it does not change the real problem. If we kick out old opportunistic leaders that were dependent on the majority for their power and prestige and replace them with new leaders that are dependent on the majority for their power and prestige we have changed nothing. We just have new faces in the same old spaces, finding out what the majority wants to hear and then making sure the majority hears it from their lips. In fact, it may be worse. At least we knew something about the old faces.

What can we do? Is there no way to elect leaders that we trust as responsible men and then let them make what they determine are responsible decisions for us, but at the same time avoid the risk of establishing a dictatorship? If there was one thing our forefathers agreed on it was that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Thankfully, there is a way to avoid both extremes; a way to separate elected leaders from the tyranny of the majority and at the same time keep them from seizing absolute power. That way, however, is the one politicians least want to see put in place. Let me explain with an example.

George W. Bush was like any other politician. He wanted to get re-elected. No matter what he might say to the contrary, in his many years in public service, all his calculations included the thought, “what will this do to my re-election prospects?” While there were certainly other things that must have entered into his calculations, like, “is this morally right? How will this affect my friends? How will this affect my own personal wealth?”, he knew that if he made a decision that was vastly unpopular, especially with his party, he would never get re-elected. I believe that a careful examination of his political career or a truly honest self-evaluation by himself would prove this assertion to be true.

Except for at one point near the end of his career. Cast your mind back with me. In 2008-2009, Bush was approaching the end of his public service. He had reached the pinnacle: two terms as president. He had achieved what his father had not. And, of vital importance, he would never run for elected office again. Then, crisis hit. Huge financial institutions began to fail left and right. The American economy stood on the brink. Bush should have known what to do; he and his party had been preaching it for years. The republicans, particularly conservative republicans, were firm believers in laissez faire government. The financial crisis was a good thing. Bad businesses would fail, good would prevail, and the market would correct itself. All Bush had to do to keep in his party's good graces was do nothing.

Doing nothing, however, is exactly what Bush did not not do. He bailed out the banks. He passed TARP. He was as interventionist as he could be. What on earth was he thinking?

He was thinking that he was not up for re-election. He was done. And, he thought that bailing the banks out and passing TARP was the right thing to do, and the necessary thing to do to save the country, and the world from financial disaster.

Now, you certainly may disagree with what he thought. But, I find it very hard to believe that his actions were motivated by a desire for re-election. If you do not believe me, just look at what the Tea Party did to the republicans that voted with Bush on those bills. Bush had reached point in his career where he felt he was free to do what he felt was right, based on his conscience and on the information available to him.

This, then, is the secret. We want men and women in government that we elect. We do not want some psycho sitting on American throne just because his or her father sat there before them. We do not want someone governing us that the rich, or academia, or one certain geographical area decided was best for the job. We still want to chose them. And, once we choose them, we do not want them in there forever. But, at the same time, we do not want to elect someone that can never use their best judgment, and would never want to in the first place because they have been conditioned to only do that which will get them re-elected.

How do we do this? We elect somebody for public office and then do not allow them to stand for re-election; at least not for a long time. Can you see how this would help? Why would a politician pander to fickle public opinion if they were not going to get re-elected no matter how much pandering they did? Leaders would stop looking at their term in office as a job they had to hold on to, and more as the public service it was intended to be.

The problems: what if we get fooled and do elect a crazy? How do we get rid of them? Well, one of the best things about this plan is we'll be sure to get rid of them once their term expires even if they still have 51% popularity! Also, it is not like we are electing them to a sole position of power. One man or woman by themselves will not be able to over power all of congress in one term. And, at the end of that one term, again, they are done.

How do we ever get anyone in office long enough to do any good? One of the most common arguments in favor of returning representatives is that the workings of the US government are seriously complex and not to be learned over night. I recognize this, and personally would recommend lengthening the duration of most public offices. But, whether lengthened or not, I think such a revision would actually increase rather than decrease the efficiency of public representatives. As it is, they spend half of their time posturing for the media in their respective bodies rather than actually working to solve problems. Then, they use up the other half of their time zipping around the campaign trail making false promises and kissing ugly babies. If they had no re-election there would be no reason to make blustering speeches designed to embarrass their opponents on the other side of the aisle. Also, if they had no re-election there would be no campaign trails; just the knowledge that once they were done they would be going home to live with their consciences.

Who knows? If we removed the opportunity of securing a lifelong job of power and prestige as well as sniveling servitude to public opinion out of public office maybe we would get less opportunists seeking it. Maybe patriotic people would see a real opportunity to help their country rather than the dismal promise of being stuck in endless debates put on for the sake of constituent's every changing opinions. Maybe intelligent and visionary people would see a real opportunity to improve the country, and would take a break from jobs that actually utilized their vision and intelligence. Certainly, my idea is not a cure-all, but maybe, just maybe we would get people in office that were good at governing and leading, and not just good at getting re-elected.

More Adventures in Africa

Well everybody, it has been a long time since I've posted, for which I apologize. But, it has been awesome here! Let me give you some of the good news.

First of all, the loans are going great. We gave out one more to bring our total loaned out to six loans, with about $2500 loaned out. Besides that, however, we have almost twenty other people that are ready to receive loans! Now, the only thing we are waiting for is that money to be transferred from America.

In addition to that, I have started teaching in four new villages. Their names are Akokom, Amonom, Akwadom and Ekorso. They are all pretty small. I would guess none of them can have more than 1500 people in them. But, the people are way excited about coming to learn and even more excited that they might have prospects of getting loans to improve their lives. At the first city I went to 58 people showed up to listen to me talk. At the next one, 85 people came! Although most of them can't read or write, they are great people with great business ideas. While a college education can help, I am convinced that you don't have to have a degree to be successful in business, especially in places like these.

One of the other exciting things I've gotten involved with lately is talking to local city leaders about the challenges they face in their towns and what they are doing to overcome them. One of the amazing things is that they actually listen to me and want advice from me. Nick, Aaron and I have all commented that one of the hardest parts we'll have to get used to when we get home is being a nobody again. Anyway though, it has been a real eye opener into the challenges people face here and a cool way to try and help out. Also, I've put several of the town mayors here in contact with local political leaders back home. They will act as mentors, and give the leaders advice on things that have worked well in America and might work well here too. I hope that just putting the two people in contact will continue to provide help for these great people here long after I am gone.

A couple of more things. Last night it started raining around midnight and kept raining hard until about 10:30 this morning. When we finally went outside, there was water everywhere! I walked down to the nearby river and it was way beyond its banks. Then, this afternoon, Nick and I had to walk to a town about an hour away to teach a class and give out a loan. Along the rode, we came to two lakes that weren't there before. But, since there was no other way around them, we just had to walk on through! The deepest it got was about chest deep. A lot of the Africans saw us walking through and laughed at us. It was a great time.



The only other thing I have to tell you is that some of the shirts for the family are ready! Here is a pic of me modeling one of the guy ones, along with my sweet African hat I bought in Cape Coast.



Hope you are all well!