Source: www.republicanoperative.com
In the past few days there’s been a lot of talk about doing away with the midterm elections. Of course, this topic has only sprung up as it has become increasingly clear, though not certain, that the GOP will win a majority in the Senate tonight and increase its majority in the House. Just as the 2000 presidential election set off the calls for an end to the electoral college, we see here again the Left trying to muck with the Constitution whenever things are going their way.
Those who want to do away with midterm elections argue that House Reps are only concerned today with re-election and don’t do any governing. The second criticism is that the usual wave of victory for the party opposite of the President during the midterms creates inscrutable gridlock in Washington. As such, there is a dearth of governing.
Where those clamoring for an end to midterms fault is in their assumption that we need a more pro-active government busily churning out reams of legislation.
“They’re not doing anything in Washington!” they whine. “Nothing gets passed!” they lament. “Government needs to do something!” they cry.
These erroneous beliefs have allowed government to grow in its power—and thus in its out-of-control spending—at the expense of the power of the citizenry. Wishing for a do-something government means wishing for a more powerful government, and where there is give, there is take. True conservatives should rather vie for a small government with limited powers.
Governing is not a profession—there is no need for a professional class of legislators and executives. It was never intended in the founding of this country for a congressional position to become a career. It was a 2, 4, 6 year gig, and then it was up.
Instead of cancelling the midterms and transferring that much more power to the supposed do-gooders in Washington, I would like—if anything—to see elections become more frequent. Increasing pressure on elected officials increases their responsiveness to the voters. Why have Republicans of late, in general, become more beholden to principal? They very well know getting voted out of office is a real possibility. Just look at what happened to Eric Cantor a few months ago. Cancelling midterms would reduce the frequency of elections and the frequency by which voters can re-shape their government.
The basic assumption I’m making here is that gridlock is good, because a government that is doing nothing is better than a government that is messing everything up. The fewer onerous regulations the better. The fewer grand pieces of legislation the better. The fewer career legislators the better.
If you disagree, let me know.
Interesting opinion. I tend to disagree, of course.
First, the idea that “conservatives” want less government is not born out by the desire to interfere with the most intimate decisions a man and woman can make. Whether or not to have a child. In that case, it seems, conservatives welcome big brother and government intrusion. Odd, don’t you think ?
What “less government” really means is less regulation. Which means less protection for working people in terms of job safety, wages, conditions, etc. A less safe environment in terms of pollution of land, air and water. Less spending on infrastructure,education and research which in the long run is penny-wise and pound-foolish.
In my day (admittedly long ago) conservatives were GOPers who sought to “Conserve” what is best. The environment. Programs that worked to help the less fortunate. Individual rights.
Today’s “conservatives” seek to destroy government regulations and oversight. except in areas of personal morality. Less government, they wrongly assert, means good government. It doesn’t. Less government means more problems created today that will have to be solved in the future.
What we need is good government. Efficient government, Cooperative government. Government that genuinely seeks to help solve problems that any large scale society encounters.
One of the problems we see in our 2 year election cycle is simple. People who are supposed to be solving the problems we face are Instead, Congressmen are faced with an enormous task of constantly campaigning. Constantly raising money. And the easiest money comes form the wealthiest, of course. So, we end up with a legislature largely committed, not to the American people, but to narrow interest groups. Good example. A pledge to Grover Norquist. A pledge to the NRA. A pledge to NARAL. Etc.
I think a term of office coordinated with the presidential elections would give which ever party achieved power a decent opportunity to implement their ideas without constant campaigning.
Do you really think it is healthy for a democracy to have one party determined to destroy the chief executive ? I don’t.