Remove All Politicians?

Posted: July 28, 2009 in Category - A Commentary From Bo, Remove All Politicians?

“Ought we to Move Them All Out of Office?

Of course, I am speaking of the national movement to replace every member of the Federal House and Senate with new human bodies.  This movement has spawned a number of organizations like Get Out of Our House (GOOOH), the American Policy Roundtable’s sister organization as well as many others whose purpose and philosophy is to find people who met certain predetermined criteria and present them to the public as a viable alternative to the incumbents.  Don’t get me wrong for these are great groups, especially the American Policy Roundtable, and these services are sorely needed and overdue.

Clearly, after the experiences that many of us have had with many incumbents it is time, it is past time, for the incumbents to be pried from their Congressional seats.  I don’t want to use the word professional as a negative adjective to describe a sitting politician.  The word professional is a good word.  A doctor is a professional.  A surgeon is a professional.  There is nothing inherently wrong with being a professional even being a professional politician.  Even the term politician is not inherently evil but describes a person who has given his life to the politics of the nation and that is honorable although I prefer the word statesman.  We inherently accept this by our voice inflection when we use the term.  If we are speaking of a politician with whom we disagree we tend to make sure our voice inflection on the word reveals to others we clearly don’t like the fella.  Yet, if we are speaking of a politician with whom we agree the voice inflection on the word is drastically different.  Now, if an individual has decided to give himself or herself to pursuing what is best for the general welfare of the people of his country, party notwithstanding, he or she ought to praised.  The system we inherited from the Framers is meant to pool together the best minds the people can find who want to devote their lives to the politics of this nation to provide for the general welfare of her citizens.  If there is such a politician they are in fact the very kind of person for which this system was created.

I ask the question because it has always been the American philosophy that if a person is truly passionate about his job and doing it to the best of his ability, even if he is not the best at it, he ought to be supported by every means.  Americans balk at the idea that a man or woman who is doing their dead level best at their job ought to be replaced just to be replaced.  I believe this is the point we, as Conservative Americans, have come to in our desire to retake our country by reigning in our Senators and Representatives.   I was about to ask if removing a person merely to remove a person is fair.  Actually, the real question in this rant is, Is it American to remove a person just to remove a person?  I would answer no.  Conservative Americans are all for removing a person from a job or office because they are inept and rightly so.  Send those pink slips to Ryan, Bocceiri and Obama! But Conservative Americans balk and resist the forces that be when a person who is doing a job to the best of their ability  is forced from their job just to be forced from their job.

I am speaking of politicians in this rant.  I believe it is unAmerican to remove a politician from his or her job just to remove a politician.  Why do I believe it is unAmerican?  First, it is called doing what is right! Second, it is called commitment.

Is it right to remove a person who is not passionate about their job and therefore is not doing the job to the level they can?  Absolutely.  Such a person is ripping off his or her employer by stealing time, energy, money and labor.  The American people are the keepers of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and the employer of the people who sit in the Presidency, House and Senate.  They answer to us and if we do not remove those who refuse to live up to their Constitutional expectations we are being unAmerican.  But let me ask you this.  Is it right to remove a person who is passionate about their job, doing it to the best of their abilities and, in this case, being the person for whom this system was created just to remove him because we don’t like the others?  No.  If a politician is being the very kind of person for which the American experiment was created why would we want to remove him or her just to remove them because of our anger with those who are not?

Why take out our anger on a politician who is actually doing his job?

Why take out our anger on a politician who cares about the Constitution and the Declaration and wants to return us to the Republic we are supposed to be?

Why take out our anger on a politician who deeply cares about the general welfare of the peoples of this nation?

Why take out our anger on a politician who has given his life to this pursuit because he believes serving his country in this manner is the most honorable thing he can do?

Why take out our anger on a politician who is Constitutionally doing his job just to open that seat up to another who might be fooling you as to his real intentions?

But there is a second issue we need to examine.  If we are going to remove politicians just to remove politicians despite their actual record what ought we to expect from them?  I would argue we ought to expect no commitment from them.  But isn’t this lack of commitment at the heart of the issues we have with many of our politicians at the moment?  Why ought a person who is doing his job commendably commit himself or herself to a group of people who will simply remove them to remove them because they are angry with those will not do their job?  We get angry at business owners who refuse to commit themselves to employees who have committed themselves to that company for decades no matter what argument they make.  Rightly so.  We get angry at parents who refuse to commit themselves to their family or each other.  Rightly so.  If a politician is passionate about his work and Constitutionally providing for the general welfare of the peoples of this land has he not earned the right to ask for and the expectation to receive our political commitment to his reelection?

The issue is if the politicians who are Constitutionally doing their jobs by looking out for our general welfare cannot count on our commitment, especially at reelection, then what is the difference between the justifiably angry of this nation and a politician who is in it for himself or herself?  None.  There is no difference because both are guilty of creating an environment that lacks commitment.  If a politician does not believe you will support him, especially at reelection, no matter what he does eventually the temptation of being in this for himself or herself will win out and it will be the justifiably angry who will be at fault for creating the situation.  But then you know what will happen?  The people will get angry again and place the blame on the politician when in fact it was the people who created the very conditions for which they are angry.  Now we can ask the question, Is this fair?  Absolutely not.  If We The People want those whom we employ to listen to our voices, be responsive to our inquiries, suggestions, fears and to truly represent us we must show that we will commit to such a person especially at reelection.

Now I know many good Patriots believe they have a valid reason to simply remove all politicians to remove all politicians.  Nevertheless, I have yet to hear a valid reason to do.  This is an emotional argument and there are a few realities I would like to point out about emotional arguments.  First, emotional arguments are rarely valid because such arguments often are not based on facts.  Second, once a person calms down he or she almost always regrets what they did.  Third, once a person looks back on what he did while he was angry he often, if not almost always, realizes he acted in haste.  Finally, very few things we do in a fit of anger are beneficial, helping to resolve the situation. Often our rash responses make situations worse.

We want to create a different political environment where our politicians respond to our voices.  This is essential if our country is to remain a Conservative Constitutional Republic.  To do this I suggest we calmly and rationally look at the record of each politician and support those whose actions clearly show us that they are they are working the system as it was meant to be worked and fight as strong as we can against those who politicians who are working the system for their own benefit.   If so, we need two forms of slips.  We have the “You are fired” slip and they need to be used.  But maybe we need a “You are supported” slip for those who have earned our commitment.

It is unAmerican and detrimental to the Constitutional system to simply remove a politician just to remove a politician because we are angry.

Just some thoughts.  Rant On.

  1. ThomasP says:

    You forgot to mention the key reasons for removing the politicians, at least from GOOOH’s persepctive. This is not an emotional response. It is based on results. The politicians in office are running up excessive debts – spending money we cannot afford. They are not securing our borders. They support a corrupt 67,000 page tax code. They allow 30% of our children to continue to fail to graduate – the same as when the Dept of Eucation was founded in ’72. This is not emotion, these are facts. The list of grievances is long. If the people in power will not address these issues, we need to find people who will.

    But worse, the politicians no longer represent the people. They represent the special interests who fund them, the political parties who tell them how they must vote, and their own political career. We the people are fourth at best on their list.

    You can continue to support the professional politicians, but you will soon be in the minority. The plan to find true representatives of the people is in place. It is called GOOOH, and I support it wholeheartedly. Not from an emotional perspective, but because our country is at risk.


  2. Bo Perrin says:

    Hi Thomas. Thanks for reading my blog. I do not disagree with your “facts.” I disagree with your universal statement that 100 percent of all politicians have abandoned Constitutional principles and their constituents. As you probably know very few universal statements are true which clearly leaves some, not many, to be true. In this case the desire to remove all politicians is not valid.

    The argument is that we ought to remove all politicians because of the failure of some, many and even most politicians. The fact is there are some politicians who are Constitutionally worthy to be and remain in office. It is neither logically valid, morally right nor American to punish a person who is doing their job because another person will not do his. This desire, which is emotional, screams to those Constitutionally worthy that you cannot depend on our support even if you do what is right.

    This stance is immoral. We need to support those Constitutionally worthy which is determined by their actions not by results and we need to remove every politician who is not Constitutionally worthy which is determined by actions not results.

    Thanks, Thomas

  3. Dan Moadus says:

    I must side with Bo. His argument, besides being well written, is persuasive.
    Many times I felt the pull of the argument that says, “throw the bums out”, but I know in my heart that there are good men and women who are serving. It is a betrayal , and the height of laziness to not make the effort to distinguish those who serve our Country, and those who serve themselves.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s