A House Divided

President George Washington cautioned congress, in his farewell address, to avoid party politics.  I must confess to not having known this fact when I began my journey into the abyss of American politics.  In fact, I confess to knowing FAR less than any American should know about our history, back when I began.  I have since remedied that, and recommend to as many as will listen, that they do the same.

Learning of Mr. Washington's warning was quite an encouragement to me, in so much as my primary objective has been, from the beginning, to put an end to "party think", as it applies to the voter.  I see it as the instrument by which our (for lack of a better word) leaders have convinced us to submit to their rule.

I hope you will permit me to coin the phrase, "party think".  It has a certain ring to it, don't you think?

What I mean by "party think" is this.  We each have in our minds, a vision of how we think things ought to be.  In each of us the vision varies by some degree.  We feel strongly about some things.  Less so about others.  The problem arises when we have to choose someone to represent us in government.  Because we, for the most part, only have two choices, identified by a party affiliation, we must decide which to accept.  We make this decision knowing full well there is plenty about each that we dislike.  Once we make our choice, we begin to identify ourselves with that choice.  Because our nature is to want to believe we are right, we begin to defend even the things about our choice that we disliked when we made it.  We begin to vilify in our minds the candidate, and by extension the party, we didn't choose.  Thereby trapping ourselves in "party think".

I submit for your consideration that "party think" is the reason our choices are so limited at the ballot box, and truth be told, none of us are happy about it.  None of us are happy, yet, out of fear we submit to it just the same.  I might be willing to wager that voters on both sides of "party think" are only slightly more in favor of the candidate they choose, than of the one they don't, only on different issues.  And that their final decision is based more on fear of the one than confidence in the other.

But how do we solve this problem of party think?

Consider that this problem is an internal one.  Like an addiction.  I'm confident that, if you think about it, you can make that connection.  The first step to addressing an internal problem is to admit that it IS a problem.  The next step is to recognize that, however difficult the process, it must be done.  We also must recognize that, as with any addiction, there are those who don't want to see us "kick the habit".  Those who have a vested interest in keeping us hooked on their product.  I'll not go so far as to say it's intentional.  At least, not by ALL party politicians.  But each of the major parties are working to convince us that we really need THEM to protect us from the OTHER.  We must recognize that we don't need THEM to protect us.  We already have a defense against BOTH. The United States Constitution.

The true and lasting beauty of our Constitution is that it does indeed protect us all from each other.  It protects us from the ideology of our leaders, WHATEVER side of "party think" they happen to be on.  Those who want us to believe we need them to protect us, have little respect for the power of the Constitution.  This IS true of BOTH parties, though not necessarily true of all their voting members.  Many of them, I am convinced, are as trapped in "party think" as we are.  They merely need an open and unobstructed door to escape through.

Which brings me to the next step in addressing the problem...  CHOICES.

No matter how badly we may want to, we can't make the change without better choices.  There was a time in our earliest history even before the signing of the Declaration of Independence, when communities chose their leaders, not merely because they raised their hands and said "please pick me".  They sought them out for the wisdom they possessed, not because they would give them what they wanted, or even because they agreed on everything.  They recognized their WISDOM not their IDEOLOGY.

What made President Washington warn congress to avoid "the spirit of party"?

Perhaps, being the only president ever to be chosen with no regard whatsoever for party, he was able to see what no other could.  That "party think" however well intentioned, can have no other effect than to weaken the Union. And, over time, weaken the Constitution. HE WAS CORRECT.

I'll get back to ya... 

A response to Sen. Sharrod Brown

Hello Sherrod,

I would like to begin by offering you my thanks.  You have provided me the perfect opportunity to introduce myself to YOU, and to Ohio.  My name is Scott A. Rupert, and I intend to be on the ballot in 2012, to challenge you for Ohio's 2nd seat in the U.S. Senate.

You will notice I refer to it as Ohio's seat.  Not YOUR seat.  Not "THE PEOPLE'S" seat.  OHIO's seat.  Somewhere along the way, (I suppose with the passage of the 17th Amendment), the idea has been lost that the role of a Senator is to represent his or her STATE.  To legislate and vote the interest of the state.  In essence, to protect Ohio's sovereignty.  We have another branch of Congress who's job it is to represent the people.  That would be the House of Representatives.  One can expect that a member of the House might suggest legislation that threatens the state's sovereign authority, if indeed it is the will of his/her constituents.  One might even expect that legislation to pass through that body, given the right circumstances.  However, as a Senator, it is your job to see to it that it goes no farther.

Why do I begin with this?

Well, because the first statement of your October 3rd, 2010, USA Today, editorial states that you are fighting for people.  That's not the job you applied for.  You are there to fight for your state.  To protect her.  You're not there to plunder from the hard working taxpayers in other states, among whom I count myself, to bring money back to Ohio.  You're there to see to it that it never leaves.  If "fighting for people" is what you believe you have been called to, I encourage you to run for a seat in the Ohio House of Representatives.  You see, ALL the things that you believe to be good, do have merit.  But they are things best done at the state level.  Our United States Constitution doesn't prevent the states from doing... well... pretty much ANYTHING to benefit the citizens of their domain.  But it doesn't allow Ohio to steal from Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Pennsylvania, or West Virginia to accomplish it.  If Ohioans truly WANT a health care plan, FUNDED BY THE STATE, then by all means, CREATE one.  If they want it, they won't mind paying for it.  If they don't... there are 49 other states to choose from.  

Your all for "CHOICE", right?

Among the things you list as "fighting for" are jobs to keep people in the middle class.  Well sir, please understand that most of us in the middle class would, indeed, like to move UP. And the cost of your successes is making it evermore difficult to do that.  I will use myself as an example, for a couple of reasons.

1) To demonstrate that I am absolutely committed to honesty and transparency.

2) Because I am the only American of whom I can be sure I have all the facts, and that they are truly FACTS.

I am a, self-employed, truck driver.  I haul cars for a living.  I own ONE truck.  A 1994 Peterbilt, with 1,753,845 miles on the odometer.  Hardly sounds like "privileged", does it Senator?  Due to a series of unfortunate events in the fall of 2007, I was forced to use the money that had been set aside for taxes to fix my truck.  A continuation of those events compounded the problem in 2008.  I filed as I should have, but wasn't able to pay.  My wife's efforts to work out a payment arrangement were met with disdain.  On top of all of it, was the pressure from creditors to pay up or else.  I don't blame the creditors for this.  After all, I signed a contract agreeing to pay THEM.  2008 was a very difficult year.  Just in case you're thinking to yourself, "that was when Bush was President", you need to understand that this is a GOVERNMENT problem, not a PARTY IN POWER problem.  We made it through on our own, with no help from anyone, with hard work, and lots of it.  Just as we began to emerge from the difficulty, the IRS drained our bank accounts and caused numerous checks to bounce wreaking havoc on an already unstable situation.  I don't tell you all this because I want sympathy, or HELP, though I am still working things through with the IRS.  I tell you to make a case against the current tax code.  The device that funds so many of the programs so important to you.  If it is, as you say, your mission to "fight for people", how about fighting for those of us who are footing the bill?

Well, back to my example.

2009 was a much better year.  While so many Americans were losing their jobs, I was able to continue working, (and paying my quarterly income taxes), with hardly a problem at all with my ONE old truck.  Because my truck is old, (and this is why I have an old truck),  I have no payment to make.  Because I have no payment to make, and because I had few repairs, I was able to earn an extra 20 thousand dollars in 2009.  You would think this would have helped to pay some of the taxes from the previous years.  Instead, it added another 7000 to my tax debt.  You see, while that extra money allowed me to get back into good standing with my creditors, it put me farther in debt with my government.  Whom, I might add, is giving me very little for my money.

You see, the income tax doesn't, as you undoubtedly believe, punish the rich, or make them pay their "fair share".  The rich already have their money.  The income tax prevents the middle class from ever becoming rich.  We can't save our way to wealth while our government confiscates progressively more of our income.  I'm not opposed to paying taxes.  But let me pay them on the money I spend, instead of the money I earn.  That way I can CHOOSE, (there's that word again), to save if I'd like to move up to the next level.  I can CHOOSE not to buy, when something unexpected comes up.  Thereby, overcoming the hardship quicker.  As it is, when an unanticipated expense comes up, I not only have to work harder and longer to earn the money to cover the expense, but also to cover the tax on the extra money.  It seems to me, that the U.S. Treasury would end up with more of the cash from the wealthy, if they taxed it as they spent it.  As I said, the wealthy already have their money.  It's not income.

It just NOW occurred to me, that the reason labor unions came to be, in the U.S., was a free market response to workers working too much, for too little.  Workers decided that the abuse they were enduring at the hand of their employers was more than they could stand, so they organized.  Perhaps that Tea Party thing you're so worked up about is the free market response to essentially the same thing.  The government abuse that working class Americans are experiencing has become more than they can stand.  I know that's why I am going to challenge YOU.

I have told those who would listen, that the Tea Party movement is akin to the response of Americans to a natural disaster, or a terrorist attack.  Average Americans, recognizing a desperate situation and coming together to address it.

I am an American who sees a problem, and I think I have an idea that will solve it, so I'm getting involved.  I'm not a Republican, or a Democrat. I am an American.  An independent (with a little i) American.  I am not wealthy, or Ivy League educated.  For that matter, I'm not even a high school graduate.  I am one of the "PEOPLE" you claim to be fighting for.  And the problem I see is party politics.  ALL PARTY POLITICS!  Divide and conquer is the strategy BOTH parties have employed for too long.  You BOTH have used fear to motivate voters to side with you.  It has to stop. The idea that I believe addresses this problem is for ordinary Americans to lay aside the fear of the process and get in the game.  That's what I'm doing.

I look forward to the contest.  May the best ideas win.

Scott A. Rupert