Over the past couple of days, I have amused myself in sparring with young members, the aspiring leadership, of the local Republican Liberty Caucus (“Ron Paulers” to some) about the philosophical differences in the way we think about our elected leadership. I found interesting the topic of the dialogue as it evolved, and figured that readers here might appreciate reading or getting involved as well. It began with the status update in full text below (personal and extraneous comments have been omitted):
Shawn Olson: "Politics...let's break the word down. Poly. As in many, or a multitude of. Ticks. As in small bloodsucking animals that bring about disease, and who hang onto the backs of people". Therefore: Governmental employees who synthetically take on the appearance of swine, engaging in poly-ticks so they can successfully suck the life out of everyday Americans by gorging themselves at the HOG trough.
Chris Buckley: Weren't you trying ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING to become one of these not that long ago...!? Interesting...
Olson: Yes! Chris as you know I did run for office! Just because one runs for office doesn't mean he is looking to be a Politician. Sometimes when your concerns are ignored not answered and feel the government has gone beyond its constitutional authority. You wait and wait but still see no one willing to step in and fix the problems, therefore one needs to step in and fix it themselves. If everyone that felt the need to go against their elected officials were to run for office and not wait for others to do it for them, we might end up with less and less Poly-tick-tions. I think that normal citizens running for office by being a elected official, would be a greater check and balance, then having a politician being the elected official! Not every elected official is a Poly-Tick but those are few compared to the amount of Poly-Tick-tions that are in office!
Buckley: Well, clever use of alliteration, anyway. You didn't make a distinction between "officeholders" and "poly-tick-ians" in your original statement, so I figured I would call you out on the ironic hypocrisy. Perhaps my profession is one about splitting fine hairs, but logic is logic. Not everyone is cut out for public service, and being a politician is a unique and rare skill that takes great experience to develop. I know that your types of people believe that the average joe could do the job; however, these are the same people that believe they can adequately represent themselves in court and end up unnecessarily losing or serving twice the criminal sentences than had they simply hired a competent attorney. Running for office is not always the best way to air your differences with officeholders. If you don't have the education, natural ability, skill, and experience, you might just have to rely upon the tried-and-true ways to affect change. Let the professionals handle the rest.
Olson: I thought that I made the distinction clear any officeholder is acceptable to being a poly-tick-tion. "that believe they can adequately represent themselves in court" I can give you just as many examples of people who represent themselves that win, same goes for I can give you examples of where the lawyer messed up the cases because of his feelings on the case or lack of his own experience. In my experience most lawyers want to make a deal before the case actually goes to court.
Now I do sort of agree on the part everyone isn't cut out for public service, If your opinion changes just as much as the direction of the wind. (These people tend to vote their hearts...or have ulterior motives aka: staying in office!)
You need one that will take their oath of defending the constitution seriously. If the bill isn't constitutional then you have to vote NO! If the bill puts undo burdens on the electorate you vote NO! No matter how feel good intended the bill maybe.
Olson (cont’d): Letting the professionals handle the rest. Isn’t that the problems we are having today? Business as usual! Example of the professionals handling our economy we told the lending institutions to be more free in there lending ideas give the money out like its candy so everyone can have a home. Don’t worry if they can afford it or not! Then lets make these loans Triple A Bonds and trade them on the market. It was the old pyramid scheme the problem is the pyramid can only get so big before it collapses. While the creators got out with lots of money the suckers at the bottom was crushed. Then we the people get are arms twisted by the professionals getting government bailing the same banks who made the money on the pyramid scheme. Now that’s tried and true methods in action, finding new ways to screw the American People!
Buckley: Well, I can see that you regularly read Ron Paul's website and remain faithful, but do you have ideas of your own!? It's really easy to sit back and make very primitive arguments about a Constitution you don't fully understand. You seem to think lawyers are unskilled or that seven years of intense education and experience is without merit. I am not saying in my analogy that in every case a person is better off with a lawyer, but more often than not this is the case; trust me, I have served in and before several courts and, by and large, the pro se litigants are far worse off.
Buckley (cont’d): To your point about re-election as motive, I think if you read Madison and Hamilton, the Federalists predicted this very behavior as a desirable means to a modestly positive end. It ensures that action is based upon a compromise or proportional influence of faction, which essentially neutralizes this effect. I'll tell you what: if you would like to debate me on the forefathers or on particular clauses of the Constitution, you set the time and place, I'd be glad to accommodate you. The bigger the audience the better, as far as I'm concerned...[omitted]
Charlie Kochenash: What’s wrong with debating right here [Facebook]? Everyone is watching. But, please, stick to the issues. I am tired of people with weak arguments resorting to personal attacks. Chris, one thing I would like you to hit on, if you don't mind, is this. You made the following comment above [omitted]: "Not everyone is cut out for public service, and being a politician is a unique and rare skill that takes great experience to develop. I know that your types of people believe that the average joe could do the job; however, these are the same people that believe they can adequately represent themselves in court..." Ouch. Why do we have so many problems with government? Is it because we are electing "average joes" to office? Do these politicians just not know what they are doing? How does one, who aspires to get into public service, acquire the experience that produces the rare and unique skill?
Buckley: Well, Charlie, I feel that is a VERY good question with a fairly simple answer. No matter your trade or profession, the most effective training tool is observation. This goes to my own (and continuing) experience as a young lawyer. Theoretical knowledge is great; it is filling your toolbox with the proper tools that one day you will need. Observation is watching a man of the trade use his tools in an effective way. Since I am a born litigator, I sat for many, many trials as co-counsel to get a feel for how to use those tools I was acquiring in law school. After observing and assisting at several trials, I was actually able to argue my own cases. It was much easier than I anticipated, due to my training and experience in the courtroom. The same is true for aspiring politicians. You can observe on television, but the best experience to begin with is watching how they operate in everyday life. The life of a legislator is a life of compromise, problem solving, and complaints.
I know that you've already begun this informal training, Charlie, as I have seen you at many key events. Whether you agree with particular points of view of individual politicians, being a politician in general is a skill in and of itself, and you have to acknowledge that. Whether you agree with it or not, our forefathers envisioned representatives close to the people; namely, individuals not unlike lawyers who actually REPRESENT the people of their respective districts. As I mentioned above, this is not an improper motive, and neither did our forefathers think so. Representative democracy is a utilitarian construction about providing the most to the most, within certain limits of tyranny by the majority upon the minority. Just like legal counsel, the feelings of the individual representative should be objective and irrelevant, because, by definition, this detracts from truly representing the people of your district.
So, in short, I would not have just chanced showing up in a courtroom the first day I decided I wanted to be a lawyer. Doesn't that sound a little ridiculous, even to a populist? Would I walk in to a law firm on my first day and demand I take the biggest or toughest case? Certainly not, and for the same reason, I could not in good conscience win the graces of the people to adequately represent them in government without the necessary experience to be confident that I can provide them with the utmost service they rightly deserve. I just hope others would have the same courtesy and respect for the office of representing others.
PORTER COUNTY POLITICS: WHAT DO YOU THINK!?
Sunday, August 23, 2009
blog comments powered by Disqus