Today I read about two issues that reinforce my distrust of the government in general. Local, State, Federal, its all the same. When you read my sweeping skepticisms and worries about motives, these two examples are the sort of things that feed my concerns.
First is the FBI admitting they illegally monitored thousands of Americans. And they insult us with claims of unintentional human error and computer gliches. This happens because I believe there simply are people who are nosy, who like digging around just to see what they will find out. Under the auspices of national security or looking for some particular type of crime, there are people who get satisfaction and a sense of power from getting to look at people who don't know they're looking. After all apologies and claims of accountability, no one will actually be punished. If I saw more accountability I would be slightly less cynical.
Chose your rationale for government authority. On balance I will take the risks associated with privacy and freedom over the fuzzy hodge-podge of well-meaning and nefarious motives for governtmental nannyism.
Second example - the details to Jefferson County officials' alleged theft of files kept on the personal details to an outspoken County critic and the subsequent publishing of those details plus their contradictory explanations.
These things happen even though we're paying attention. This is why my skepticism runs deep.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I haven't read the articles yet, or talking points from either side, so I'll just go from the gut. Since these days everything is political, I look at who has to gain from these stories. Next I see who's running them, running with them, and any slant. You need to decide are these people (lets use the govt and the FBI specifically) extremely smart, totally inept, or not as smart as they think and bumbling in the dark.
On Jeffco, that one's a little closer to home as I've been on the receiving end of this kind of thing(if I am to believe what some on the inside have told me). So yeah, that one boils my blood, if it's true.
So, does it make you want to be more careful here? Or more outspoken?
You'll have to sketch this in a little more clearly for me. For example, if we take the implications of these stories as true, how does abuse of authority by federal law enforcement or a local public official with a vendetta have anything to do with public policy and your claims about property rights in Boulder County?
This is a great example of the way that well-justified and healthy skepticism can quickly turn into irrationality. Should I conclude that the Boulder County Commissioners will engage in illegal wiretapping and a smear campaign if I disagree with them about proposed land use policy changes? I thought that your tentative objections were at least based on political philosophy, not just paranoia.
If we presume elected leaders will be corrupt at every turn, this just creates the expectation and the excuse that this might be true. More power to those who question and substantiate their skepticism, but unfounded, wild speculation about ulterior motives is part of what fuels feelings of disenfranchisement and apathy.
Privacy and freedom define our lives in Boulder County, U.S.A., so much more than the price we pay in any sort of "nannyism." Maybe the public should be asking how domestic spying and foreign assassinations have come to be acceptable government activities - I don't disagree that this could have grave implications in our future - but the messengers might want to keep in mind that reasonable people will eventually see it as crying wolf if the target of criticism is something as out in the open as a land use policy change in Boulder County.
I would say that what this does is predispose me to NOT believe the best case scenario outcome usually mentioned as part of the rationale for any policy decision. I do not leap to an immediate conspriracy, however I wonder what it is I don't know. To Chris' point, it makes me more vocal, not more careful. Vocal in my questions, then careful in my allegations.
Alex, I get your point about being paranoid or over the top on concerns about decisions made in Boulder County. I'm an interested and aware citizen who believes that although the scale may be different, the human nature is still the same - some people will abuse power, and on balance being distrustful will keep more leaders in line - and hence retain our freedoms - than giving them the benefit of the doubt, and going to work and vacation without paying attention.
That kind of mindset, by the way, is what leads to the people showing up to yell at City Councilors (or the Planning Board) on the night of a decision that has been through a 6-meeting, 8-month process. Vigilance at best deters any shananigans, at worst you at least know what's going down.
Well said. Of course, this is all just a preview for when you unveil some opinions about what the Boulder County types are doing about their sustainability/house size limitation initiative (which was linked in your presentation with the moratorium authority, which I haven't forgotten about either)...
The most effective legislative action against corruption and elected official malfeasance is very simple, Term Limits!
Term limits don't exist in the ideal universe, as they are an artificial restraint on democratic choice.
While I have no great love of this Congress, this is the one body in the United States that is protected by the federal courts and the federal Consitution from having legislatively enacted term limits.
Do I think the corruption in Congress is limited to the senior members, or that corruption always increases with seniority?
I don't think so. Some of the senior members of Congress are some of the best. Some of the junior members are some of the worst. Term limits do not actually address a problem; worse, they are loaded with unintended consequences.
Term limits force the retirement of good public servants, some who are only starting to really lead.
Over the last decade, our Colorado General Assembly has phased in term limits. Few think the results are superior. Nor has the average term of service decreased. Elections have always worked well in Colorado, as it turns out. We're just killing the political leadership and leaving it to the lobby to take care of continuity.
Incumbency is a strong bias, one might say, in an election. A solution is ballot access. Another is increasing voter participation in elections. We should have strong ethics in government, and good coverage in the media.
When it comes to re-electing a representative for the second time, a third term, versus electing a freshman, experience is one factor voters might consider, a fresh perspective is another. That choice is available without term limits. With term limits we always get the freshman.
I simply don't see the need or the benefit to reversing the bias, always away from one kind of candidate. And using legal force to drastically reverse a trend that may be rational to begin with...
But I'll certainly hear out the arguments in favor.
He said %!@%$?, hehe, hehe.
Sorry Alex, still disagree. How are the seats on the most powerful committees in congress handed out? Yup, seniority. The founding fathers certainly never intended (even though the did not write it in the constitution) for government to be a profession, otherwise it would have been King Washington, not President. Is term limits messier due to the inherent turnover? Absolutely. However the benefit of fresh perspective and the limit on corruption and pork barreling is well worth it! As to the good ones, who were you referring to? Strom Thurmond? (yeah, I know he is dead, but most would say his last five years in congress nobody could tell either way). Ted Kennedy perhaps? Don't get me started! Oh yeah, in addition to term limits add eliminating political parties!
The great thing about the term limit debate is that we now have a living laboratory, with U.S. Congress immune, both state and local offices in Colorado now evolving with the limits. Term limits sounded great in theory, but the point is no longer what would George Washington have said (where I think you have missed the point - the Framers could have installed term limits on Congress but didn't, because the Framers wanted a democracy, where the best could always lead). The point is what consequences have term limits wrought, empirically?
The point about chairs on committees is an interesting one, as this is exactly where you can look to the Colorado General Assembly and ask if there is any benefit to term limits. Again, as I said last night, the only noticable effect is that there is slightly less experience in the leadership, which just gives a modicum more control to the lobby. There are unintended consequences of term limits. On top of that, observers might also agree that the Gavel amendment, which directly addressed a problem, has had far more effect on limiting the influence of the chairs of powerful committees.
It's certainly well within the means of voters to agree with the wisdom of term limits, but I fail to see any evidence that such an indirect control on "corruption and pork barreling" is working or would work. The checks and balances are really out of whack if you need to add term limits to police those evils, and it still doesn't actually prevent either. If you want corruption and pork barrel spending, there is no better environment than the one in which lobbyists carry all the institutional knowledge.
Ted Kennedy, funny. No, though I think Chris, the other day, accurately put his thumb on the lameness, as opposed to sinister intent, that defines that ilk of politician. And even Strom Thurmond, while he was not an example of anything in my mind, became more moderate with seniority, and I am unaware of any allegation that he became more corrupt. On the other hand, Ted Stevens, from Alaska, has been the pork barrel king from very early in his tenure...
Tell me why term limits would be a good idea to get rid of Arlen Specter (the alternative being, recall from the last election, a far less moderate candidate) or Robert Byrd. Maybe I'm missing something - I only have so much time and patience to follow Congress.
No argument on eliminating political parties. You can quote George Washington on that, too.
Term limits were something brought up before the ratification of the Constitution. James Madisons cousin, also named James Madison, president of the College of William & Mary pointed out some of the concerns: the president may be "for life" because there were no term limits and might be a negative due to his veto power. He observed Senators, elected by legislatures, could also be for life, which includes the President of the Senate (Vice President), and their (pres/senate) power to appoint/approve judges, which all added up to not much of a separation of the powers that they were going for.
I was for term limits more in the past, but now lean towards them being pointless. The partys rule supreme and it appears to me the candidate matters less and is just a lacky for the party. I feel the "cynical" tag coming on ;)
Being around some of these people and seeing the process, after feeling slightly soiled and greasy, I also get the impression it's a machine, they're entrenched, and not much will change. If they get term limited in the House/Assembly, then they just move up to the Senate/State Senate, then they can go back to the House after that, and on and on it goes. In other words, they rarely go away and wear out their welcome. Some of it may be ego and addicted to power. Takes a certain personality, and I ain't got it, and proud of it.
As far as the parties, yeah it's a mess. This next election cycle starting so early (and being decided wayyyy too early) is a good example. The primaries are going to be a joke. The money required to sustain a heavy 2 year cycle is beyond the reach of most people, and I'll hold off saying "decent" people. But I heard a pretty good argument FOR parties on the radio the other day. Let's say theres 6 major parties (feasable if the 2 majors split and a couple others thrown in for fun) and the most any candidate gets is less than 50% (probably way less). The runoff procedure would make us look like a banana republic with the possibility of someone getting 15-20% of the vote and winning. It's hapenned elsewhere. Anyway, thought I'd throw that in.
I could not agree more about the way the parties rule supreme. If you don't like this, stay tuned for more with term limits, which diminsh the importance of the candidate and pump up the importance of party.
There are good arguments for the two party system. While I like to think that third parties should provide some sort of answer, the truth is that the number of parties is not the heart of the problem, it is the importance of party altogether. Representative government values politicians with enough independence to effectively represent the distinct views of their constituents, in their region.
I also looked up some of the Constitutional history on the problem of term limits today. Apparently the Articles of Confederation (1776-1787) contained strong term limits for Congress and relatively easy provisions to recall representatives. Madison and Hamilton are both linked to a particularly relevant discussion in Federalist 57, for those following along with their Federalist Papers...
Post a Comment