The Democrats are in trouble. Obama's ultra radical agenda has been soundly rejected. The party is losing seats in Congress and soon the Democrat majority will be gone. I was thinking that perhaps government would be more effective if Congress and the Presidency were held by different political parties. That led to my thinking about the process we use in government to control what we have, and to forge ahead. The process is what we call legislation . . . and it involves compromises, corruption, and re-elections. Whoa! Could it be that the reason it is so difficult to get things done by the governement is that it is a faulty, inefficient, and cumbersome way to steer America's progress?
Think about the nuts and bolts of how our government's business is conducted. You couldn't run a local Kiwanis Club the way our legislators run the nation's business. Let's discuss an exagerated example:
Each political party has a set of established traditional principles and values. They each have representatives in government service, and they each are expected to vote for or against [whatever issue]. Before the vote they are bombarded by lobbiests who advocate for their bosses [perhaps selfish] interest. Then they set themselves up to count the pro and con reactions of their constituents. Then the party bosses step in and demand they follow the party line. Then when they disagree the party bosses offer to trade [something] to influence their vote. Somewhere along this convoluted methodology . . . principles and values are compromised by those who vote on [whatever Issue]. For one side to [win], the other must [lose].
When one side [loses], we can be sure that a political party principle or value has been trashed in order to get consensus.
Is this really the best way to resolve a conflict of interests and govern a nation?