Reclaiming National Dignity

Note to Reader:  This post is purely a personal political commentary on the US Political climate.


As a citizen interested in government and as a former legislator, I had long believed that too many governmental programs are botched because they are started in haste without adequate planning or establishment of goals.  Too often they never really attack the targeted problems.­ -- Jimmy Carter, 2002

The current state U.S. politics is a highly partisan, two party system that reveals divisive flaws in national public opinions.  The race for the office of the President of the United States has become less about electing the most capable chief executive of the nation but, rather, electing an ideology which effectively discriminates against a substantial population of the United States. 

The course of federal American politics in the 21^st century circulates between radical conservatism and radical liberalism.  Federal politics also undermine federalism within the United States as well.  I suggest a few courses of action that should drive national policy for our government.  These are:  1) We must have term limits for all federal, elected officials; 2) We must restore confidence in the sovereignty of the States; and 3) We must, as a nation, be willing to have crucial conversations and productive dialogue about social equity.

Term limits for members of Congress should be limited to two terms.  This is in line with the term limits for the office of the President.  Elected positions should not appear to be imperialistic, monarchistic, or aristocratic.  Term limits also makes public service more accessible.  The modern political theory of Congressional Stagnation suggests that once elected, a person is unlikely to lose re-election in the House of Representatives.  I don't believe any individual member assumes a particular identity.  I just believe that Congressional diversity comes from turnover.

“Incumbency and Short-Term Influences on Voters” is an article by John Petrocik and Scott Desposato that appeared in Political Research Quarterly that is widely cited for its statistic that, on average, 5-10 incumbents per election cycle will lose re-election in House elections.  Logically, the paradox is that 11% of the people approve of the work done by Congress and yet all but 2% of Congress people are re-elected.

It has long been a personal belief of mine, that as a citizen of the United States, that if a political ideology is so divisive that threatens our democratic republic then it should not be a federal issue.  When compromise fails on a politically ideological situation, then the people and the government must courageously accept the sovereignty of the individual state’s determination of what is best for its residents. 

Technology has provided access to more information and data than ever before.  I believe that this also presents a complication.  I believe that technology also makes us less likely to compromise because our access to information leads us to believe that we are right when we take a position. 

One of the many great privileges of being an American citizen is the freedom to choose which values we will possess and live by.  This ability to be an individual carries the responsibility to respect the choices of others.  This does not require a citizen to compromise their own values but it can lead to open and constructive conversations where understanding as opposed to dominance is prevailing purpose.   

In response to polarizing effect of major issues, I propose that America courageously accept that all divisive issues that cannot be objectively evaluated as right and wrong be returned to the States.  Gun control and abortion are examples of two ideological differences that demonstrate the subjectivity of policy. 

The gun control issue rests on an interpretation of the Constitution.  Rather than impose a modern interpretation of gun control, making gun control a states’ rights issue protects the constitutional rights of the people, and the laws, of Chicago, Illinois and Anchorage, Alaska without compromising the sovereignty of the local and state governments.

From my perspective, abortion debate has almost never been about abortion itself.  It has been about the fundamental question of when life begins.  However, without science (or law) definitively speaking to the universality the personhood of a human zygote as life then the abortion decision cannot take place nationally.  Liberal court opinions have reframed the nature of the abortion discussion.  What began as a question of human viability for a fetus has evolved into a privacy issue.  Science and the law do not speak objectively and harmoniously to life in this circumstance and, therefore, abortion should be a states’ rights issue. 

Social equity is the greatest challenge to the American landscape.  I believe viral issues, such as perceived police bias, corporate oligarchy, and the “1%”, are not individual issues to be resolved but are themselves symptoms to a greater problem in America.  The problem itself is something that must be rooted out through education, conversation, and judicious action. 

Comprehensive reform of America’s school should begin with defining what is a quality education and then bridging the access gap to this education.  America has a Gross Domestic Product of $17.95 Trillion, by far the largest economy in the world.  We should also have the most wealth of any nation.  Therefore, American students should not be allowed to make it through primary and secondary schooling without literacy, math, and critical thinking skills. 

Federal student loans, scholarships and grants for post-secondary education should only be need based.  Federal educational benefits should also have some sort of return to the government in the form of civil service, military service, or select degree seeking programs.  Forbes magazine noted that bachelor degrees in fields like anthropology, film, photographic arts, and other “softer” degrees should not put students into debt.  The probability of the student repaying the debt without incurring a forbearance, deference, or income controlled payments is significantly less likely than a STEM-field producing degree.

Critical conversations begin and end with engaging with the intent to understand and not to dominate.  This must be a values driven conversation to understand differences in prejudice and practical methods to re-evaluate the community dynamic.  Racism exists.  Prejudice exists.  Discrimination exists.  In the course of dialogue, growth and engagement, communities can push back against racism, reveal prejudices, and eliminate unjust discrimination while recognizing the existence of just differentiation. 

At the end of the day, the American people need to be willing to act courageously and judiciously.  The leaders of ideology seem to be more interested in protecting special interests and statuses quo at the expense and sacrifice of the dignity of the individual and the nation.  America can restore her national pride.  And each American must be a part of reclaiming national dignity.