Is What We Have What We Want?

It seems to me that one of the most frustrating aspects of the political realm is that the politicians we have seem to be power-hungry and corrupt. We want new elected officials in Congress to fix the problems that previous officials have made, and yet when the new ones reach Congress, they're practically indistinguishable from the ones we voted out.

Probably for most of us in the average American realm, we can scarcely see anything that happens in D.C. as anything other than politics as usual. Take the minor rebellion led by House Republicans over the month-long break. Pundits applauded the move as initiation of change, a bold step forward, and a sign to the nation that these members of the House, at least, were serious about fixing the energy problems confronting us.

I think that perhaps there was some demonstration of resolve, some definite interest in debating the problem and trying to find solutions, and yet cynically I can only see it as "politics as usual". It was nice grandstanding, and it certainly caught attention, and I was even excited for a while. But then the break passed, Speaker Pelosi didn't bring the House back early from vacation, and then the same politicking returned to D.C. that we've all seen before.

The real problem in Congress is that Congress does not act like a governing body, but a business. People in the business want to stay in the business. People in the business are interested in giving people what the people want, not what they need. Giving people what they need isn't popular, especially if a majority of people polled in the latest survey don't want what they need.

There is something intriguing about a politician that will actually hold firm on an issue and not change direction with the blowing wind. For that, President Bush and Speaker Pelosi deserve respect. The problem is that this kind of tenacity rarely wins reelection. If a politician has a firm stand on a point that is practically a non-issue at the time of his election, no one notices. But if the non-issue becomes an issue, and people want change in the opposite direction of where that politician wants to go, he loses the election.

From the politician's point of view, if he wants to remain a politician, the winning strategy almost seems to be to follow whichever way the wind is blowing.

In addition to policy, in order to win reelection, a politician needs to campaign, both so that people can see the good he has done so far, and also so he can make promises for the future. Campaigning, though, costs money, and thus the politician's winning strategy is to go where the money is.

The net result is that the logical outcome is the production of politicians that only care about money and votes, and have no real interest in crafting real policy. Real policy that fixes problems isn't good, because removing problems removes the need for the politician to be in office. Real policy that gives people what they need is unpopular. Real policy that cracks down on corruption, pork, and bribes chokes off the much needed money to stay in office. Is it any wonder that our new, bright, honest, hopeful candidates go to D.C. and become like all the others?

Sometimes I wonder if this system is what we really want, and if it is what we want, what we can do, if anything, to fix the seemingly inherent problem.