No matter what, the last six years is in most American minds as a Republican effort to oust President Clinton. It will not go down in history, nor should it, as a bi-partisan effort to assure the laws of the land are uphold. That is not what it has been about.
It was either blind luck or a plan followed carefully to the intended conclusion of destroying a president. If it were blind luck that Jones, Lewinsky, and Willey all chose to come forward after much gut-wrenching personal turmoil within them, then, indeed, Starr was one of the luckiest people on the face of the Earth and would do well to invest in lottery tickets across the nation.
If it were a plan that was followed closely, then let us hope that any similar plans backfire on all politicians as this one has on the Republican Party. Perhaps it has even backfired to the extent the American public is more aware of their responsibility in assuring that we place only the people with the highest moral standards, the greatest integrity humanly possible in positions of control of this nation.
But, is the American public more aware? If it is, it doesn’t seem they are talking about it. I work in a very public place and daily visit three or four other businesses. Plus, I am online and correspond with people in many other areas of the country and a few in other countries.
And, yet, not one mention of the Senate’s closed-door deliberations (what happened to their insistence during the debate on televising Lewinsky’s deposition that the American public has the right to know everything?) leading to tomorrow’s (Friday, Feb. 12, 1999)
decision as to whether to acquit or convict.
Are we so tired of hearing all the negativism that we are shutting it out? Or, so tired of the political games played that we have learned to ignore them?
Or, is it that far too many just don’t give a damn because of having given up hope long ago that the system can be fixed,
that control of Washington politicians is out of our hands? Are we just plain apathetic to a system that we feel we are completely divorced from except voting occasionally? And
apathetic even to that?
Do we still feel we are a Republic? Or, do we feel we are a totalitarian government made up of “the government” and “We, the people”, meaning the masses who have given up their direct involvement in legislative decision making?
A Republic is, after all, what we are supposed to be. We are 50 states, sovereign individual countries in a sense, that decided to form a union for strength in assuring our freedom, our liberties, are protected from any and all aggressors.
Our governing is a Republic form, not a democracy. We elect officials to act as our voices in the establishment called ‘the government’, which is the United States which is just the District of Columbia. We hope they will respond as the majority of us would vote if every bit of legislation were put to vote as in a democracy.
Our votes through them are apportioned based on our populations, one vote per representative in the House. We have 0.0000018 of our population determining legislation for the rest of us in the House. That is just under 2 ten-thousandths of one percent of our population voting, in essence, for the rest of us.
Of course, this changes with the Senate. We have two per state without apportionment based on population in the Senate. Thus, when a vote is put to the Senate, we have (talk about the necessity to make sure representatives of the population vote as the majority wish or in the best interests of the whole) a bit over 4 one-hundred thousandths of one percent of the population deciding on an issue for the rest of us.
A simple system, so simple that it is completely open to corruption. With such a minuscule number representing the whole, then it is quite easy to understand why it is so easy for
members of Congress to be corrupted. Major money sources and the awesome power inherit in the system can control them easily - unless, that is, officials choose not to respond to money and power (fat chance), or, perhaps, to threats or worse.
Then, if a population is apathetic and doesn’t pay attention to what is being done, corruption of leaders is even easier. And at this time in our history, we certainly have corruption in government, along with a government seemingly dedicated to the proposition that Congress controls all, that the people haven't any power whatsoever. (Hey, isn't that totalitarianism?)
What if the public decides that provable acts by any government official other than representing the best interests of the people be immediately dealt with as an impeachable offense, not with a trial by its own, or an investigation by its own or a biased team but, instead, by a completely apartisan method?
Let's say a politician votes for an unconstitutional bill. Whether or not the bill is unconstitutional can be legally defined and determined. The politician's vote is recorded. Thus, it could be clearly shown he acted against the Constitution. So, get him out of office and out of politics.
What if there were a group composed of a small number of people who have repeatedly shown their involvement in government and the legalities of government? What if the people had the willingness to stand on their own by resisting influences of party power and big business? What if this group determined the constitutionality of congressional behaviors?
The group could be kind of like a court above all the rest in the judiciary system making politicially unbiased decisions concerning impeachable offenses which would be any against the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights and other amendments.
Of course, they would have to have the courage to speak out even with the ever present potential of being silenced forcibly either by big business and/or politicians already corrupted.
However, as we all know, the above is impossible as long as the degree of apathy that exists continues or worsens. After all, it is the system we now have and our liberties are being taken along with our money.
But, perhaps, if the masses did understand this is still their country to control through the power to control its legislators,
then perhaps voter apathy and Congressional tyranny would end.
The people can force legislators to vote only as the majority of the public dictates.
They could, if so inspired, actually cause a party to force the resignation of transgressors just as the Republican Party did with Gingrich. Involvement in anything ends apathy, and, contrary to what many believe, voting once in a while is not, I repeat, not, being ‘involved’ in governing.
So, maybe the reason I didn’t hear anything mentioned today is quite simply because people believe their involvement means nothing, that they don’t have any power to control the workings of our government, that the entire affair has been out of their hands, just as they believe nearly every aspect of our governing to be.
Have we simply evolved to being sheep herded about by a few shepherds who have been allowed to have complete control. They speak falsely and we jump as if they have behaved within the limits of the Constitution.
And, then, again, maybe too many of us just don’t give a crap because we never give a crap about anything that doesn’t affect us directly, at least, that we know of. So, maybe ignorance
is bliss.
I wonder.