Wednesday, June 27, 2007

in con gru ous

in con gru ous
adj. disagreeing with circumstances; unsuitable, inappropriate
-Webster’s New Millennium Dictionary of English

1. Lacking in harmony; incompatible: a joke that was incongruous with polite conversation.

2. Not in agreement, as with principles; inconsistent: a plan incongruous with reason.

3. Not in keeping with what is correct, proper, or logical; inappropriate: incongruous behavior.

-American Heritage Dictionary

Serving in the United States Legislature

-somebody’s old uncle

When I studied civics, ’way back in the dark ages when disco was still king, I was taught that the United States Congress was a representative body of government, and, as such, answered to the people of the United States of America, i.e., the voters.

So, what I have to ask is fairly simple: precisely when did this change?

Surely the majority of Americans can’t actually openly condone William Jefferson’s illicit gains and hope he heads the ethics committee, or encourage Teddy Kennedy’s blatant hypocrisy over alternative energy sources -- or, for that matter, John McCain’s (and nearly everybody else’s, in both houses and the Executive office, as well) delusional views on illegal immigration amnesty (excuse me, “reform”) and its opponents -- can they? At least, most polls I’ve read say not. If more than a plurality, if an actual, sizable majority of American voters and likely voters think, for example, that funding the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is absolutely essential, why would any of our representatives in Congress say otherwise, even in partisan jest?

If the vast majority of Americans have come out in support of transparency in government -- say, asking them to put away nameless earmarks and let everybody see who proposes what spending of taxpayers’ dollars -- wouldn’t one imagine that the vast majority of our representatives might vote accordingly, and not go about tacking on even more earmarks?

Oh, no -- these men and women who have been elected seem to be working under the notion that they are not at all representatives of the people, but have been appointed lifetime overlords of all, by some unseen deity they euphemistically call “the public.” Instead of answering the genuine needs and desires of the people who put them into office, they respond, nearly every time, to those special interest groups the Bicameral Campaign Reform Act was supposed to marginalize. Sadly, those who wound up marginalized seem to be the voters.

I used to be strongly against term limits for public servants. I believed that, as long as the majority were stupid enough to want somebody, over and over and over again, we should grant the majority what their idiot hearts desired. Unfortunately, I’ve seen too often that the incumbents have a worse-than-unfair advantage. Through gerrymandering, corruption and cronyism of the worst sort, men and women whose legislative actions indicate an interest in only themselves (and the occasional partisan hackery) are repeatedly returned to office instead of making room for very capable, responsible challengers.

Today, we step out of the polling booth, and, congratulations! we’ve delivered an arrogant aristocrat who believes herself entitled to her own military jet airplane service, for herself and her family, and thinks it’s her job to usurp the role of Chief Executive in charge of kissing national enemies and insulting allies! (Not that the current Chief Exec is doing that impressive a job at foreign policy, but it’s still a branch-sensitive responsibility, after all. Queen Nan is on the wrong side of that hill, as long as King George and his regent live.)

It is time to rid ourselves of the arrogant aristocracy we’ve been suffering -- from both sides of the aisle. Their incongruous conduct in Congress calls for their expulsion.

It is time to reintroduce the idea of actual voter representation to our representative government. It is time to revisit term limits for everybody, and weigh all in earnest. Otherwise, the public’s faith in our democratic republic will, in all likelihood, continue to diminish, until, ultimately, both necessary faith and its dependent republic must fail.


Suggested Reading:
Stanley Kurtz, on Bad Vibes and Mark Steyn's follow-up comments
McCain says rivals "pandering"
Michelle Malkin liveblogs amnesty proceedings
Captain's Quarters: Doing what Clay Pigeons Do (amnesty bill analysis)
and this nice observation by Indiana's Mark Souder, posted at Power Line.

No comments: