Issue Position: Citizen Engagement

Issue Position

SELF INTEREST:

Shortly after March 4, 1789, the rest of the World began taking bets on how long this new "Republic" would last. After all it had been since Ancient Greece since such a silly notion existed. The civilized world knew that people must be told and controlled in their lives. It was simple really. Either, force and brutality or divine appointment would determine the course of human events. Governments were not negotiable, and above all were not accessible for common participation. The people had no understanding what was best for them in the eyes of monarchs and dictators alike. In truth, some still feel this to be the case.

Fortunately for us, our founding fathers realized a fundamental human flaw and tried using it to our advantage. They knew from experience that concentrated centralized power was dangerous to freedom and liberty. They were also deeply concerned about the "mob mentality" or the power of the masses and governing under emotion. Add to the mix a firm understanding of the nature of power and the corruption of men. Subsequently, the architects of the Constitution created the social contract with an intricate balance of checks. Based on the idea that power is intoxication and men will dutifully act in their own self-interests, the Supreme Law of the Land is designed to anticipate the human flaw.

Three branches of government that have separated but equal roles begin the dynamic of the Republic. Each of these branches has the responsibility to compete for power and limit the other branch's power. In theory this is to eliminate the consolidation of power in any one branch. If all three are acting in their own self interest, then the checks afforded in the Constitution will keep all three branches constantly competing for the prize -- power. If each does their job then no one branch can become more powerful than the others.

Having arrived at a logical solution to counter-act the consolidation of power at the central level, the framers argued intensely on how to provide freedom and liberty to the people without succumbing to the whims of the masses. The Legislative Branch was one the longest debates in the formation of our country that was wholly predicated on self-interest. More specifically, each state trying to ensure that another did not have more of an advantage in the political process. Politics being the allocation of goods and resources, it naturally made sense for the states to want their fair share and sometimes more. Small verses large, agriculture verses merchants, and free states verses slave states, are some of the arguments that created compromises.

Past the Legislative Branch the, the assumption of self-interest was extended to the States and People via the Bill of Rights. These ten amendments succinctly ensured that individual states as well as people had the power to protect their own self-interest.

Most States adopted mirror images of the central government creating their own constitutions and representative governments. The similarities allowed for federalism or the shared responsibilities of government to work. It also created another level for self-interests to be perused.

When the Republic is functioning as it was designed there is fierce competition between branches of government, states and people all competing for their pieces of the political pie. The only constant at each level of federalism is the ability of the people to be involved and compete. Most of the time the power of the vote represents this inclusion. Only the people's vote can traverse all three levels of government (federal, state, and local) and effect different institutions in each level. This is the ultimate check to ensure that representative democracy remains the conduit of government.

Representative democracy or a Republic works only if every player, institution, branch, and person act in his or her own self interest. In recent history, our Republic has been consistently failing to provide for the needs and wants of the collective people. The reason is quite simple. The majority of the people have ceased for whatever reason to act in their own self-interests and peruse their needs and wants in the political process. More and more individuals have become disenfranchised and don't bother to play the game. Voter registrations are small compared to the over all population. Voter turn out to the polls in most cases is less than 50%. In the final analysis, a very small percentage of individuals are playing the game and competing for their own self interests. When this lack of participation occurs the system can be manipulated into serving the interests of the few that are playing. Special interests and money now have an open road to influence the politicians whose self-interest is to be re-elected. They are naturally reacting and servicing the people and organizations that are demanding their attention. Lack of competition in elections and super-funding by the groups and special interests that do play the game create the 94% re-election rates of politicians that do not seem to care about the people. Why should they? It's not in their self-interest. They are playing by the rules, we the apathetic many are not. Thus the system of checks and balances regulated by the pursuit of self-interest fails because the individuals have stopped competing for their portion of the political pie.

I wonder what country picked 250 years on that original bet. That could be a reasonable conclusion if we continue to be so complacent that we allow others to determine our "best" interests as opposed to our own self-interests. We have already lost the ideas of: Of the People, For the People, By the People.

The solution: the people must compete for their individual self-interests. Will you run your government or will you allow it to run you?

Source