Osler's Razor

Thank you for the generous compliment, Mark. You are kind to overlook my myriad glaring deficiencies.

What is Wrong? It is a good question. The problems, surely, are legion.

Here are a couple things I do not like:

1. Our United States Congress has become too important (it is a paradox that they do not accomplish much--but that is a different matter). Congress is a full-time job--and it is a Washington-centered job. Neither one of those things makes good sense.

2. More importantly, we tend to only be interested in the "federal" or national government. No one can identify their state rep or state senator. Right now, I don't even know who is the mayor of Waco. We are having school board elections in which less than 10 percent of eligible voters cast a ballot. LA had a mayoral race a few weeks back and no one came. LA!!!

So, we are losing interest in local government. We are expecting too much from national government. And, because they are not equipped to meet our high expectations, we are losing faith in national government.

Sadly, there seems to be very few options in terms of changing that dynamic. Going to Washington to change Washington seems to most of us a fool's errand. So, other than living the high life in DC, living the life of a political rock star, why do it?
 

AWF - very good points.

It also requires a personality type that can handle a good amount of BS and I dare say most of the Razorites really have a pretty sharp BS-meter that would keep them from seeking elected office.
 

We have a political system that has been purchased by our monied interests. Money influences decisions in the executive, legislative and judicial branches of our government.

One must be comfortable with being owned to run for office. Until voters decide that the influence of money and the threat of money is an important problem, we will have too many gutless, self serving candidates elected.

Getting money out of politics is a moral imperative and only morally stigmatizing the influence of money will work to rid us of this virus.

The power of money is so complete that we cannot expect political or legal remedies. Outrage directed against candidates who accept any outsized or secret donations could work.

Maybe, then, those whose only agenda is to govern, will have a chance.
 

AWF, Christine and John - much agreement here – though AWF, any glaring deficiencies I can not speak to . . .

Politics used to be a ‘noble’ endeavor of service in community (planning, park board, council), county, (commissioners) etc. . . and appears to have evolved into self-gratifying ‘foreplay’ with plenty of adulation that can border on ‘cult like’ worship.

The thought of myriad sources of ‘soft money,’ the emergence of ‘smart phone’ video bloggers, twitter followings, etc. . . that promotes incendiary behavior bordering on ‘arson of the mind’ and continues to fuel self-gratifying speech that media elevates for ratings still continues to amaze. . .

For many, the CPAC yearly gathering has become, for a week, ‘24/7 entertainment’ for both sides of the political divide – recently eclipsing sensationalized coverage of Move-On, Occupy Wall Street, Michael Moore. Cable news now relies on promoting their continued entertainment offerings – and it matters not how much lasting public value they produce – It’s all about ratings, ratings their ‘target markets’ drive.

Oh, the images of campaign videos demonstrating a candidate’s prowess and smile while firing an AK47 that expels spent cartridges faster than the eye can count as they seek to maintain or achieve an 'A' NRA Rating.

Actors, musicians and professional athletes move over – The Janeane Garofalo and Lizz Winsteads of the Left have been covered less with the emergence of Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, etc. . . and Michele Bachmann’s celebrity status will soon ensure lucrative ‘gigs’ in media venues and the ‘blogashere.’

Only in America has being an ‘outrageously out-there’ politician become a celebrity career, with 6-months of vacation, a salary and staff many can only dream of ever receiving, more than generous pension, health care and other ‘benefits’ – all funded by tax payer and (more and more) tax exempt dollars.

Political theatre, our nation’s newest ‘altar’ we worship at. . .
 

I saw a brief snippet of an interview with Bob Dole yesterday (Rachel Maddow Show). Senator Dole was the face of a good, decent Republican. By today's standards he would be a Democrat. That is a measurable change many of us can relate to that has occurred in the past 16 years.

Yes, money has changed everything. To enter the political arena at the State and National level one must sell their soul.
 

I know AWF only from the Razor, but from what I've read, he'd surely have my vote.

As for your question, Mark -- What can we do to get these esteemed brothers and sisters to run for elected office? -- there may be only one answer: We somehow brainwash them or mold them into people completely devoid of morals, ethics, or concern for anyone but themselves. Then, we convince them that wealth and power are the only things worth striving for. And then we take pictures of them in compromising positions, just to seal the deal.
 

Bob Dole would not be a Democrat today. He was a family values, small government, anti-taxation conservative. He may be talking about his displeasure with the current incarnation af the GOP, but it is a far stretch to claim that he would today align himself with a party the professes support for none of the things he supported when he was in congress or when he ran for President.

RRL
 

I would have happily run for County Board in Arlington, Virginia where I lived for many years... but like any political job, even the County Board has become a full time job, as have positions in Virginia's General Assembly. The pay for these jobs is minimal.

The only people who run any more are either independently wealthly, have a wealthy spouse or are REALLY STRANGE.
 

Anonymous - When Paul wellstone was alive, he would have had to wrestle me for a shot at 'more progressive' in Minnesota, and I'm possibly more so today.

However, to cast your net as 'broadly' implying Democrats can not advocate for "family values, small(er) government, anti-taxation (fair taxation). . ." is more than insulting.

There was a time, not long past, when jobs that often required 'showering' at the end of the day' allowed one to earn a modest income and contribute to and sustain a middle class that was equally as important to this nation's status as a 'shining light on a hill' (as Reagan professed) as certain groups today often idolized as the so-called 'job creators'. . .

When my parish pews are no longer home to 'progressive' families and their children - when we no longer remain active in our local governments seeking balance of service and efficiency of delivery that our tax dollars provide and when we no longer advocate for a 'fairer' tax system that rewards one for 'toil' as well as 'talent' - will I accept your premise. . .

When will the day arrive when we no longer seek first and savor 'pissing contests' as a way of solving problems.

Do your progressive friends all fall into your description of those not alighned with your political point of view?

A very wide net you cast. Have you ever asked yourself, why?
 

RRL - Bob Dole had a moral compass that by today's standards would make him far more progressive than most of the 'new' Republicans in congress.
 

Bob Dole was first and foremost a foreign policy hawk. He supported national missile defense, harsher sanctions against Cuba, harsher sanctions against Vietnam nearly 30 years after the war was over, and big military in the vein of Ronald Reagan.

He was also a co-sponsor of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, he supported a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning, he supported welfare reform legislation, and he was against affirmative action for federal employees. Oh, and he was a vocal opponent of Johnson's "Great Society" anti-poverty measures.

Of course, this round of Democrats and progressives revising history isn't surprising. A few years ago it was common to hear liberals say that Barry Goldwater wouldn't recognize the modern Republican party and that he would be much more closely aligned with liberals today. Of course, 30 years earlier Democrats had tried to convince the world that the election of Barry Goldwater would literally end in nuclear war because he was such a monster. Now it is Bob Dole that they are trying to rewrite history about. Of course, 15 years ago Clinton spent an entire election casting Dole as an evil man that wanted to take away social security, medicare (which he did vote against), and other social entitlements, and who hated old people, children and puppies.

Bob Dole, much like Barry Goldwater, much like Ronald Reagan, may not be aligned with everything the modern Republican party represents. But to call them "progressive" requires a massive rewrite of history.
 

Bob Dole was, in my memory an extreme partisan. He was the go to guy to give an acid remark on most issues for his party. He was less vulnerable than others and he accepted the role. He attacked relentlessly and seldom was described as a tribune of civility. To paint him otherwise would be to forget his history as aptly described by RRL.

This makes his recent remarks all the more telling.