For John, BLUF: Maybe we need more people in the US House of Representatives, so that the Reps are closer to the People. Nothing to see here; just move along.
The Atlantic Monthly has an article titled "How an Insular Beltway Elite Makes Wars of Choice More Likely", by writer Conor Friedersdorf. It can be found here.
Intervention in Syria is extremely, undeniably unpopular.Further down in the story we have this paragraph:"Americans strongly oppose U.S. intervention and believe Washington should stay out of the conflict even if reports that Syria's government used deadly chemicals to attack civilians are confirmed," Lesley Wroughton of Reuters reported August 24. "About 60 percent of Americans surveyed said the United States should not intervene in Syria's civil war, while just 9 percent thought President Barack Obama should act." And if there were proof that Bashar al-Assad's forces used chemical weapons? Even then, just one in four Americans favors intervention.
The citizenry wants us to stay out of this conflict. And there is no legislative majority pushing for intervention. A declaration of war against Syria would almost certainly fail in Congress. Yet the consensus in the press is that President Obama faces tremendous pressure to intervene.
Washington elites are doing all they can to diminish the people's ability to exert pressure in foreign affairs. The Constitution vested the war power in the legislature so that decisions about war and peace would be debated by elected officials from every community in the country—people easily reached by their constituents and not personally empowered by war. The legislature isn't nearly as enamored of executive-branch wisdom as executive-branch staffers are.The system of Government we were given by our Founding Fathers depended upon the inputs of the People. We are evolving into a Government run by a Gaggle of Experts. Self appointed? Maybe by agreement of other experts. This is not a good direction.
Thanks
Regards — Cliff
3 comments:
The House is not 'closer.' Unless you mean closer to their voter base.
Let me do this in terms you can accept.
Nancy Pelosi doesn't give a rat's petuoi about the big picture of balanced politics. She is a rabid liberal who is assured re-election because of the district she comes from. Because of the 'seniority system,' Pelosi rises in the ranks, devoid of any inclination to negotiate with bi-partisan skills.
This template is, imho, even worse amongst the hardened GOP.
Smaller districts might make it easier to pick off the wounded. In Miss Nancy's case she not only has a fairly homogeneous district, but her husband is rich, by San Francisco standards. Mr Paul Pelosi will spend if needs be. But smaller districts might make others vulnerable, or give them time to listen to more than the Platinum Contributors. Or not.
Regards — Cliff
Cliff.....was your use of the word "homogeneous" a convenient play on words....or perhaps you misspelled it and meant to say "homogenius".
Post a Comment