Diving for Cover

There is a term that all career legislative politicians know and cherish. It is “voting from cover.” This is a device whereby your typical unprincipled politician can vote either way on a piece of legislation, but the leadership allows him or her to vote according to which way would most assist the politician’s re-election because the leaders had enough votes to pass the measure. In other words the politician was willing to vote for passage but voted against it because his vote was not needed. Given this frequent scenario, it is no wonder that citizens have become as cynical as their elected officials.

When one examines the voting record of a political professional, one often discovers some contradictory results. A politician may vote for a measure the first time around, but vote against a nearly identical version on the second pass. The suggestively schizophrenic behavior is generally an indicator that the so-called public servant was voting from cover. You may recall the legendary John Kerry statement from the 2004 campaign that he “voted for funding the Iraq war before he voted against it.” There were some commentators and of course, Republicans, who ridiculed Kerry’s apparent two-faced approach to such a vital issue. Many in the mass media, however, did not condemn Kerry because they understood that his votes reflected a total self-serving attempt to appear on both sides of the issue. They correctly understood that Kerry’s waffling…his unprincipled position…was not rare, but it was all too common among our United States’ political class.

At first blush an observer might seek to find some mechanism or penalty for those who choose to vote from cover to enhance their political fortunes. The problem with a remedy that directly addresses the issue is that there is no allowance for the politician who actually changes her or his position because of conscience, principle or payoff. We cannot fully trust the politician’s explanation for the position switch because so many of them are either slick liars or self-delusional. The observer can assume from the beginning that the leadership allowed the member to vote from cover if the vote was close, and the member voted against the majority. An overwhelming vote on either side of an issue is not a good barometer for testing the legislator’s principles because aside from the chicken or weasel, congress critters most often resemble lemmings. One of the first skills developed by a legislator is learning how to jump in front of a parade and pretending to lead it.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to detect which unprincipled politicians were voting from cover on any particular bill unless one is closely observing the roll call on C-SPAN. If the watcher knows who the Whips are for the party, they can see who they’re “babysitting” as the vote rolls in. As the numbers of “Ayes and Nays” approach finality, the Whips will release their wards to vote. If the Speaker “needs” their votes, they’ll vote for his position, but if there are a sufficient number supporting the Speaker’s stance, the captive Congresspersons will be allowed to vote consistent with their constituents’ preferences. So, what if the leaders are wrong (we have 100 years of recent history to suggest that our political leaders are often wrong)? Are our elected representatives so politically motivated that they would sacrifice principle in order to prevent embarrassing the leadership? Apparently so and historical evidence supports the premise. Certainly it is helpful if there is unity within the caucus when they are pursuing an ideal or policy that is based on principle and integrity. Unity for unity’s sake, however, when promoted and enforced to achieve damaging compromise merely reinforces the cynicism of the voters. Deal-making, deal-cutting and bet-hedging are reprehensible positions when the integrity of the nation is at stake. Yes, this type of legislating has been in place since the beginning of our Republic, but heightened scrutiny and moments of sustained crisis have illustrated the folly and damage that such an approach creates. “Business as usual” should become unusual and undesirable.

Our political system has become so corrupt and decayed that fixing it seems nearly impossible. I am convinced that most of those who are first elected to Congress or their respective legislatures enter with high hopes and sincere desires to make a difference. They become part of the system without realizing how compromised they are. Voting from cover is just another example of how unrepresentative our political system is. If you recall, 22 House members voted against Boehner’s sell-out deal on the debt ceiling, but the real number of steadfast fiscally-responsible patriots is 19. Three Members were being herded by Whip Kevin McCarthy until the vote was “locked.” They were willing to vote with Boehner, but because there were sufficient votes, they were “allowed” to vote for principle. I’m still trying to confirm who those three were, and they do not merit inclusion in the roll call of courage and conviction. There were 19 Spartans standing at the gates as the Persians advanced. There were three opportunists standing behind them….under cover….away from the arrows. Luke’s Gospel is good. Lukewarm is tepid.

Comment:   cearlwriting@hotmail.com       or     www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

  

Honor Bound

What is honor? How do we define it? More importantly, perhaps, is how do we practice or hold it? According to one of the many versions of Webster’s, honor is “high regard or respect, glory, fame, good reputation, or adherence to principles considered right, integrity.” Most of us seem capable of recognizing honor when we witness it, and fewer of us appear equipped to routinely practice it. For many, an honorable person is one who is worthy of praise, but for some, a person of honor deserves derision for being so “old fashioned and hidebound.” In a sense I believe that the latter view is the most prevalent in our nation today.

People of true character and honor often intimidate others. The light of their rectitude casts shadows on their peers. As a nation we have cherished our honorable heroes although there has been a cottage industry of historians who have tried to crumble their feet of clay. The difficulty with praising or admiring a person of honor is that we are not privy to their innermost thoughts, their daily actions or their unguarded moments. Honorable people might not always be honorable. Just as brave people are identified during times of stress and danger, honorable people should be measured by their commitment to principle when the opposition is the greatest. Bullies are not honorable, but when the moment arrives, they can be. Cowards are generally unworthy of honor, but if they rise to face the foe courageously, they can acquire honor. If one does one’s duty, is it honorable, or must one perform an extraordinary act of valor?

This column was germinated because of the resignation of a football coach. Not a President, nor a military leader or a prominent legislator….a football coach. A man whom I respect has resigned under a cloud of suspicion. I’ve always believed him to be an honorable person…a man of high principle and integrity. Some rules were broken by a few of his players, and he supposedly failed to report the infractions to his supervisors. Pundits and other players have speculated that he was seeking to protect the wayward players from “facing the music,” but the deeds were discovered, the story was transmitted far and wide, and the coach must now take the hit. The players, thus far, have been levied a five game suspension for their misdeeds. The coach resigned because of his apparent cover-up. Ever since Watergate we’ve been told that the cover-up is greater than the original transgression. In a sense that may be true. Clearly, breaking additional laws or rules should compound the penalty, but prosecutors, persecutors and pundits too often appear to ignore the guilty rabbit in order to chase the fresh scent.

In some situations the leader who risks his reputation for his squad would be lauded. The dynamic changes however when the squad is composed of young men with a sense of entitlement who have no financial resources. The scenario becomes murky, then dark when an infraction of a rule is hidden to save the images of the players….and perhaps the coach. A similar action by the coach in a different context would be praised as an act of honor. This time the act has been condemned, and the coach has left a post that he cherished. The line between honor and disgrace is a very thin one.

Just as the revisionist historians demean our heroes and deflate their reputations, so too will the story of the coach and his cover-up be written in tabloid fashion. History is never perfect because history cannot be precisely written. When eye witnesses disagree about a recent event, how can we expect the historian to “get it right” after time has passed? Will the coach’s honor be restored or upheld at some later date by a friendly author? No, because we rightfully distrust the accuracy of authors, historians and politicians. The coach’s legacy has been chiseled into the stone of memories. I continue to believe that he is an honorable man. I do not question his integrity. He made the wrong decision, and he and his reputation will forever be tainted.

Comment:   cearlwriting@hotmail.com     or   www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

The Real Deficit

The national deficit is a big deal…a really big deal. Our nation has spent $14 Trillion more than receipts. That huge figure, however, does not include the state and local government indebtedness with is usually in the form of municipal bonds. The bottom line is that our governments are in the hole and continue to dig. Over the decades that they have been irresponsibly spending, our lives have not improved because of government action or intervention. They have used borrowed funds to implement programs that are costly and ineffective as well as generally unconstitutional. They have spewed out promises and commitments that will be impossible to fulfill. They have radically distorted the nature of the United States by taking assets from many to give to others in a wanton effort to buy their votes. They have violated the public trust by being untrustworthy.

Despite the fact that our financial debts and deficits are so massive, they do NOT represent the greatest deficits for our nation. We have a huge deficit of character and leadership. The people whom we have selected or elected to guide our nation through good times and bad have been miserable failures. Their lack of character has prompted them to take the easy paths when confronting difficult issues and problems. Their absent character has led them to mislead the people time after time when they know that what they were saying was false. Their lack of character has caused them to create problems where none exist, and then, to offer unrealistic solutions for those mythical difficulties. Lacking character, they return to us every two, four or six years and ask to return to their respective offices so that they can continue to hoodwink us while they plunder our wealth and the national treasury.

The leadership deficit is nearly as damaging as the one for character. I say “nearly” because if we had people of character in positions of responsibility, our need for inspired leadership would not be so great. Given that character is in such short supply, our need for sound, honest leadership is an absolute necessity. Leaders are willing to face the arrows when difficulties arise. Leaders give the people honest appraisals when the situation is dim. Leaders truthfully identify the problems and offer reasonable realistic remedies. Leaders do not ask the people to sacrifice more to cover the politicians’ mistakes. Leaders do not propose solutions that undermine the liberty of those they lead.

Lest we become too partisan in this discussion, please think of this. When someone proposes spending a billion dollars of money we do not have, remember that the person who suggests spending only half of a billion shows no character or leadership…just cowardice and sleaziness. The politician is sleazy because she or he wants you to congratulate them for holding down deficit spending. Both types lack character and leadership. Both types are dishonest. Both should be denounced and defeated. Our country, our states, our communities and our schools have reached the point where we can no longer afford half measures. Either those who consider themselves leaders…act like leaders…with honesty, integrity and character, or get out of the way because we’ll run you over as we take back our country.

People of character must step forward. Citizens of character must vote for them, work for them and pray for them. Good looks and intelligence are not enough anymore. Cunning politicians who know how to win locally then move on to state and national office are not the formula for redeeming our nation and its honor. We need candidates who tell the truth, and who are not afraid to face the music. We need candidates who cherish the Constitution and personal liberty. We must end the character and leadership deficits that we have today. We must not linger. We must do it now.

Comments;  cearlwriting@hotmail.com    or    www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Face Book:  www.facebook.com/pages/Earl-for-Ohio/