The Mason Conservative is one of Virginia’s more thoughtful blogs, and its author, Chris Beer, is worth taking seriously. Therefore, since Beer appears to have put a lot of thought into this post I thought it worth reblogging.
On the eve of the Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare, I got to thinking a bit how we are even here. How have we gone from having an honest conversation about America’s health care system to deciding the fate of legislation solely given to the current President and how his legacy, or at least part of it, hinges on this decision and its aftermath? The more I thought about it, the more I got to thinking about the nature of our current system of government we have now. Congress has an approval rating of 9% and we have two presidential candidates carrying on that right now, largely resemble another Seinfeld election where it’s essentially about nothing. That is a condemnation of the Republican Party who turned away the reform, activist grassroots that brought us back to power in 2010 way faster than we had any right to be back for a billionaire one-term governor who’s never lived a hard day in his life. Then we have an incumbent president who was elected because he promised everything to everyone, knowing full well he could meet none of those promises. It is insidious what he pulled over us.
Then I got to think, whose fault is this? Is it Congress’s fault? We hear nothing but the infernal partisanship that mucks up the system. If only the Tea Party would “compromise.” If only the Progressive Left would “compromise.” Yet any student of history would understand today’s partisanship pales in comparison to the days of congressman beating senators half to death at their desks or men threatening duels on the floor of the House. In fact, our partisanship I would argue is less than in the past because of all the media transparency and the unprecedented access every-day citizens have into the inner-workings of government. (continued here)
Beer goes on to identify the Presidency itself as the source of our problems. Then he proposes three reforms which he believes would help alleviate that problem. While I don’t object to Beer reforms, I do not think that by themselves his reforms would actually be helpful. In fact, without a more fundamental reform, none of Beer’s proposals will ever be enacted.
But what if just the first of Beer’s proposed reforms was enacted? Imagine our dilemma if Obama did not have to worry about reelection. What if Obama also had six instead of four years to wreck havoc upon our nation? Does limiting a president to a six-year term solve anything?
So what is the source of our problems? I think our problems come from We The People, not with our leadership. Didn’t we select the people who lead us? Yes! And we put the wrong people in charge. Moreover, we asked them to do the wrong things.
Nonetheless, is Beer right? Is there a problem with the office of the Presidency? Yes, but look at what happened in the last election. By the time we were ready to vote, much of the news media had practically deified the man. Instead of looking to God, too many of us now look to government to fix our problems.
So am I saying Beers is wrong and I am right? Because Beer and I are looking at the problem from different perspectives, I don’t there is a good yes or no answer to that question. Whereas Beer is looking a technical fix, I see a spiritual problem. I think we can each learn something by comparing our perspectives.
What exactly is my perspective? Check out CORRUPTED BY OUR SUPPOSED GENEROSITY — PART 4 and the rest of the posts in that series. Note that I will be publishing the final post in the series next Monday.