Really, this is our REAL responsibility as voters - to create a supportive environment for any President?? - Granite Grok

Really, this is our REAL responsibility as voters – to create a supportive environment for any President??

But unfortunately, much of the time, we have not understood the importance of the responsibility of voters to maintain a supportive Congress that is compatible with the agenda of the president.

From the Concord Monitor comes this bit of stupidity by Philip R. Harvey of Hillsboro, NH in which we see yet another person wanting America to be something that it is not (full piece after the jump:). To wit, it is clear that he doesn’t like our political system of governance because stalemate!  This is quite clear from the above quote when you shackle it with this (reformatted, emphasis mine):

Many constitutional democracies around the world operate under a parliamentary system. Normally, with that form of government, the people elect the members from parliamentary districts, and the political party having the majority of members selects the individual to lead the government. That individual serves only as long as the majority of members supports his or her position on issues before the parliament…in such a parliamentary system, the legislative and the executive branches of government are permanently intertwined. In other words, there is not a separation of power between the legislative and executive branches of government.

And then he goes on to describe our system.  And Harvey seems to advocating for this notion of further breaking down the series of checks and balances that our Founders put into place?  So he’s quite sure that such a situation that is far superior to our’s in that our government “can get something done”.

First off: seriously, eliminating the role of the various State legislatures wasn’t bad enough in selecting US Senators?  But second, is the major function of government should be “to get things done”? I’ll circle back to the opening “statement of fact” in a little bit.

Consequently, we can have a president with one plan of action, attempting to implement it in a hostile Congress with an entirely different political agenda. This inconsistent response on the part of voters has occurred many times in recent history, placing a hostile Congress in the path of a president, resulting in the dysfunction that the public labels as “that mess in Washington.”

I did a quick Google of Mr. Harvey and found nothing that gives corroboration of my thought of where he stands on the political spectrum, but it is clear that in showing his disdain for a “do nothing” Federal Government (really?  he really believes that?) by the use of “dysfunction” and desire for a more activist government, he’s at the Progressive end of said spectrum.  Which means, he’s just DANDY with other people running your life as that’s what activist governments do – without any check on it.  Therefore, it must absolutely PAIN him that a gigantic flow of laws aren’t forthcoming from DC.

How convenient of him to forget that the idea behind the Constitution, from the Founders own words, was a limited government.  Dysfunction / do nothing fits that just fine as for the record, as if this is a secret, I’m just DANDY with dysfunction or do-nothing government.  It means that they aren’t meddling in other peoples’s lives in ways that are outside Constitutional boundaries, taking their money, spending it on things they shouldn’t, enlarging the environment for graft and corruption, and generally making it more annoying and intrusive.  But I digress.

Here, he really does go off the philosophical rails:

But the Founding Fathers did not conceive of the “checks and balances” happening through political parties (for parties did not exist at the time they wrote the Constitution), but rather, they wrote into the Constitution the areas to be checked and kept in proper balance.

No, and they even warned against parties to boot but many of them joined said parties anyways. That said, the addition of Parties doesn’t mean that they haven’t added to the system, albeit extra-Constitutional, of checks and balances.  After all, look what happened when the Dems held the Congress and the Presidency this last time?  Yup, they certainly tried to run the table on their agenda with the normal check and balance removed.  If only the Republicans had done the same thing when they held both and stuck to their Platform. But having a government with elected officials means that people have to be elected and the Constitution make no mention at all of how individuals were to organize themselves.  But Harvey continues to set a stage:

The actions on the part of the executive or the legislative branches can be challenged at any time, and those that cannot be resolved through debate or negotiations, can be brought before the Supreme Court to determine if the challenged branch of the government has violated its constitutional mandate.

Really?  How about the judicial “standing” – something that is making it increasing difficult to bring suit against or defending laws (see here for a current example – imagine, the lawmakers themselves “disbarred” when the NH Attorney General decides, on his own say so, that a law is unconstitutional and refuses to defend a dutifully legislated and signed law).

And then he finally gets to the “voter-shaming” part.  WAHHHH!  It sounds like another person who’d rather have a different electorate:

So the idea, as stated above, is that much of the dysfunction in Washington, as seen by the general public, can be traced to the fact that on numerous occasions in recent history the voters have placed elected leaders of different parties to run the executive and legislative branches of the government.

So, he’s upset that the “general public” is upset with “the voters“?  Funny, I thought they were the one in the same?  Where else would “the voters” spring from if not from the “general public”?  A mystery of life, I guess – or some random thought in his vacuous mind?

This creates a hostile relationship, causing dysfunction that we have to accept throughout their long terms of office, a condition that is carefully avoided under many parliamentary governments.

Bad, bad, voters!  Go to your room!  Actually, let me get this straight – the voters come from the general public, which is us, but “we have to accept” what we have voted for?

Hmm, last time I looked, that’s generally how it is supposed to work – we get the government we vote for.  And yes, we have to accept what we voted for because, well, we brought it upon ourselves.  Decisions have consequences yet Harvey wants us to believe that some malevolent electorate is making life harder for us all.  Miraculous thinking – or fabulicious?

And he goes off onto another railroad spur:

But in our “very different” constitutional democracy, the major responsibility of maintaining a functional relationship between the executive and legislative branches of government in Washington or a state capital is placed squarely on us voters through our “elected” representatives.

Um, that kinda describes what should be happening – we elect our representatives.

No, it’s NOT our responsibility to ensure that the executive and legislative branches get along – if they do or if they do not is strictly up to our representatives.  And I expect that if I vote for someone, they are going to represent MY ideals and MY political worldview. If that means working WITH the Legislature (if President) or WITH the President (if a legislature) if they both fit MY views.

OR NOT. And if not, throw lots of sand into that gearbox. That’s their role and the Constitution gives them the tools with which to do so. I would be irate if they didn’t.

Oh wait, I DO get irate from Republicans vowing to “reach across the aisle” simply to “get things done” because when that happens, I’m pretty sure that my reason for picking that person means they are no longer respresenting me.

And being a Progressive, Harvey must smile.

It is important for all of us to understand that if we do otherwise [not vote a straight Party ticket -Skip], we give birth to the dysfunction that we all detest in Washington, and likewise in the states.

Thanks for the advice – I’ll make sure to go against it….I LIKE dysfunction.

Now, is there anyway to make the Executive Branch’s Administrative State (which has become it’s own unelected government branch) go dysfunctional and do nothing?

Harvey’s piece:

My Turn: To avoid dysfunction, stick with your party

It’s time for us Americans to get vote smart. It has been over 200 years that we have lived under a two-party political system, and we have yet to figure out how to make our very different constitutional governments work to the satisfaction of the people.

It is time for all of us ordinary citizens to learn a little more about our federal and state governments and why they seem to be so dysfunctional for such a vast number of the people today.

Why are our constitutional governments very different?

Many constitutional democracies around the world operate under a parliamentary system. Normally, with that form of government, the people elect the members from parliamentary districts, and the political party having the majority of members selects the individual to lead the government.

That individual serves only as long as the majority of members supports his or her position on issues before the parliament.

In England, for example, the Parliament elects a prime minister who serves as long as he or she controls the votes of a majority of the members of the House of Commons. Hence, in such a parliamentary system, the legislative and the executive branches of government are permanently intertwined.

In other words, there is not a separation of power between the legislative and executive branches of government.

In contrast, the United States has three separate and independent branches of government, the executive (the president), the legislative (the House of Representatives and Senate) and the judiciary (the Supreme Court and supporting federal courts around the country). These three divisions are separate with each having specific constitutional rights and responsibilities.

The president is elected by the people in a national election every four years; the House members are elected every two years, within districts, by the individual states; and the Senate members, also elected by the states, for six-year terms (with a third of them being elected every two years). The Supreme Court justices are appointed by the president for life terms and must be confirmed or rejected by a vote in the Senate. Most of the 50 state governments are organized essentially in the same manner.

What this means is that the selection of the president and the representatives and senators in Congress is left entirely to the vote of the people in “free” elections. The result, in our two-party systems, is that the people can elect a president from one party, say a Democrat, and a majority in Congress of the other party, Republicans.

Consequently, we can have a president with one plan of action, attempting to implement it in a hostile Congress with an entirely different political agenda. This inconsistent response on the part of voters has occurred many times in recent history, placing a hostile Congress in the path of a president, resulting in the dysfunction that the public labels as “that mess in Washington.”

There are many people in the country who believe that having different parties in control of the executive and legislative branches of government is desirable since they contend it offers a “check and balance” that prevents any branch from over-stepping its authority.

But the Founding Fathers did not conceive of the “checks and balances” happening through political parties (for the parties did not exist at the time they wrote the Constitution), but rather, they wrote into the Constitution the areas to be checked and kept in proper balance.

The actions on the part of the executive or the legislative branches can be challenged at any time, and those that cannot be resolved through debate or negotiations, can be brought before the Supreme Court to determine if the challenged branch of the government has violated its constitutional mandate.

So the idea, as stated above, is that much of the dysfunction in Washington, as seen by the general public, can be traced to the fact that on numerous occasions in recent history the voters have placed elected leaders of different parties to run the executive and legislative branches of the government.

This creates a hostile relationship, causing dysfunction that we have to accept throughout their long terms of office, a condition that is carefully avoided under many parliamentary governments.

But in our “very different” constitutional democracy, the major responsibility of maintaining a functional relationship between the executive and legislative branches of government in Washington or a state capital is placed squarely on us voters through our “elected” representatives.

Here is where “Get Vote Smart” comes in. There are many factors, of course, that contribute to the dysfunction of governments that are beyond the control of us ordinary citizens, and these problems need to be dealt with, but we do possess the most powerful tool of all to control the functioning of the government, and that is our free vote to choose who is sitting in the various seats of power in Washington.

But unfortunately, much of the time, we have not understood the importance of the responsibility of voters to maintain a supportive Congress that is compatible with the agenda of the president.

It follows that if your economic and social interests are served by the policies of the Republican Party and you decide to vote for a Republican president, then you should vote to elect the Republican representatives and senators for your district, but if after careful research and thoughtful analysis, you determine that your economic and social interests are commonly supported by the Democratic Party, and you decide to vote for their candidate for president, then you should be sure to vote for the Democratic candidates for the House and Senate.

It is important for all of us to understand that if we do otherwise, we give birth to the dysfunction that we all detest in Washington, and likewise in the states.

(Philip R. Harvey lives in Hillsboro.)

>