We need elected officials to act within the constraints and precepts that are generally understood to apply to acquaintances and distant friendships. Let's look at the basics of these relationships. When we meet a person we have within us our local culture, such as an accent, the way we carry ourselves, our religion (or lack of religion) and accepted etiquette. For a friend, when we see these differences in those around us we may admire them, even if we don't understand these differences. We might debate with our friends to highlight these differences; but, we make little attempt to pull our acquaintances to our side of things except in very rare circumstances, such as a business deal that would benefit all involved. The important part of the relationship that we have with acquaintances and friends is that we needn't sacrifice any of our distinguishing characteristics or values.
How does this apply to the relationship in governing? When someone is elected, this person is elected to represent a certain ideology, locality and (or) movement. If this elected official has been honest in the way they presented themselves during their campaign; then, it is their duty to ensure that they continue to represent these view and principles while in office. The problem is that often when an elected official gets to their office, they lose their connection to those core personality traits that may have encouraged voters. It is almost as if the nerdy kid, who had friends support him in friendship, gets popular and forgets the friends who stood by him during the early times. What would be better, and more honest, is if those in elected office took the self disciplined road of remembering where they came from, who they represent and who they were before they were swept up in the magic of governing. In that same spirit, they should accept their new friends (in whichever place they govern) as they are. These new friends should make no attempt to sacrifice their view, culture or inherent values. Again, too often elected officials seem to become part of the culture of the governing rather than the governed. These people forget the precious values that made them who they are and made them acceptable to the electorate.
In my state of Utah, Senator Bennett, ran for office in 92' and he promised that he would only serve two terms...(senate seats are served for six years). Now, he is running again in 2010. Bennett has also been ranked the tenth most liberal Republican member of the Senate...oh,..ninth since since Arlen Specter rejoined the the Democrats. Bennett has been criticized for supporting a bill that is uncomfortably close to the liberal health care bills. Why does all of this about Senator Bennett matter? Because he was elected to represent Utah, which is one of the most Republican states in the union. We are also a state that believes in people keeping their word and in utilizing free market principles to address problems. Rather, Bennett has adopted the culture of his friends in D.C., and he has forgotten the culture of the people who elected him. He forgot where he came from.
In a recent debate on whether Cass Sunstein should be appointed to an executive regulatory position, there was a vote to end debate. Bennett voted to end it. Cass Sunstein has no background in regulation, in fact most of his life has been spent in academia. He writes a lot and has wacky ideas about the legal status of animals being equal to human status. Bennett voted to end debate on confirmation of Sunstein. How dos this pertain to a relationship? Bennett was elected to represent a state that still has a large farming industry. By voting to end debate on Sunstein, Bennett knew that Sunstein would be appointed to an office to implement new regulation where he will, most likely, view regulation through the prism of his extreme views on animal rights. This is not good news for farming, for Utah or for anyone who might like to see regulation decreased in general. Senator Bennett sacrificed his principles to play nice with his new Washington friends while forgetting about the friends who need him as an advocate back home.
Healthy Anger
One sign of a healthy relationship is the ability to show "healthy anger." This is a form of anger that defines personal and cultural boundaries, such as, when a friend says something about another friend's religion, family or wife, that is inappropriate, the offended friend might show anger which shows that boundaries have been crossed. Even in a marriage a degree of "healthy anger" is simply healthy. If both spouses can't define their boundaries then personal boundaries are being trampled upon.
In the case of those in governing positions, it is too seldom that we see "healthy anger" exercised. It is more likely to see those in power seek compromise and resolution. Imagine a group of friends where one insists on drinking, which will inevitably lead all the friends to danger as this friend's patterns have shown before. Another friend just wants to go to dinner and discuss the past week. There is an impasse here; but, the drinking plan will certainly cross the personal boundaries of the other friends involved. The friend who wants to go to dinner will have to show leadership, perhaps expressing a degree of healthy anger. He may even make himself unpopular with others; but, he shows that he has boundaries and insists on his way. This is the sort of leadership that we often lack in places of power.
Looking at the Joe Wilson situation, Congressman Wilson acted inappropriately by bellowing out "you lie" during the President's speech. He was condemned by many in his own party. Rep. Wilson apologized and the President accepted. The situation should have stopped at the President accepting the apology but there were too many Democrats who saw political blood in the water; so, Joe Wilson was a topic of discussion for days. Here is when some "healthy anger" would have come in handy. One can be sure that there were Democrats who knew the constant barrage of anti-Wilson rhetoric was misplaced and uncalled for. Had one or more Democrats stood up to the party leadership and yelled "enough, this is stupid" then there would have been some perceived integrity within the Democrat ranks. Alas, the whole party was afraid to be angry or anger the leadership; so, they followed the school yard bully, Nancy Pelosi, pointing their fingers, basically chanting "stinky Joe, stinky Joe."
Governing Is Not Marriage
Marriage is the most unique relationship in human existence. Two people from different families, backgrounds, perspectives and genders come together to build a new life and family. In a marriage, it is sometimes necessary to compromise cultural, family and regional interests. Most of us understand that marriage requires self sacrifice without losing ourselves in the process, for example, one culture may take priority over another in some instances. What we don't need is for those in elected office to see the relationship with those in comparable office at all like a marriage. We need those who represent us to be inseparably a part of their respective culture, values, and local interests. If they become part of the culture of those in power then they have compromised too much.
One example that ties into this principle is that Utah's former Governor Huntsman went on national television touting the need for there to be stricter caps and taxes on carbon emitting industries. Huntsman's alliance with other environmental leaders stood in contrast to the fact that Utah is an energy producing state; so, the Governor's own state would be hurt by such regulation. Why would Utah's Governor make such a stance? Because his aspirations were for a more auspicious position than the governorship of a state with less than 3 million people. In addition, if Huntsman can show to a national audience that he was a politician who "reached across the aisle" then he might be more electable to a national audience. Some believe that he plans to run for President someday. Today Huntsman is the ambassador to China for the Obama administration. This again plays into the compromise position that Huntsman is attempting to create. Here is the disconnect, Utah is one of the states where Obama's opponent did the best which shows that the former governor no longer represents his state. Now, we are left asking if the former governor married his national aspirations at the cost of the interests of his state.
It is time for us in the electorate to expect our elected officials to have a healthy relationship to power. When those in power forget the values and culture of the people they claim to represent then it is time for someone else to take their place. It is also incumbant upon us to understand that it isn't healthy to have people in power give us a few goodies to be re-elected, they must have an understanding of the citizen's relationship to those in power and govenment at large. If we insist on a healthy relationship in those who govern then the places that they govern will be more healthy.
Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
