i couldn't believe it. here we have a bona fide, major-party candidate vowing to get up and leave the congressional floor if he confronts an idea or point of view that he finds abrasive, uncomfortable or somehow offensive. in other words, if you vote for ken buck, you can count on him to abandon his seat when the discussion sits outside his value-system. and the crowd went wild.
part of me thinks this is just buck's politico-rhetorical approach to grabbing votes. he touts himself as a conservative purist, unwilling to compromise his principles for washington "business-as-usual" procedure. to boot, buck's ties to the tea party movement have been both politically convenient and somewhat inhibitive: while the tea party essentially revitalized his failing campaign, he's found himself needing to distance himself from some of the tea partiers' more extreme viewpoints (as detailed in chicago press release's analysis of buck's relationship with the tea party). particularly entertaining, he was unfortunate enough to be caught calling one tea-party audience a group of "dumbasses." oops.
but there's something about the idea of a senator getting up and leaving session simply because of ideological friction that seems to resonate with some other trends in right-wing political thinking, particularly regarding a unilateral and (i would argue) irrational fear of "government" and suspicion of what has become known as "washington elitism." first, the notion that political experience has become a liability for a candidate seems absurd to me. when i apply for a retail bookseller position at the local bookstore, i'm asked about my retail experience (and usually denied because i have none). i should hope that those working in the united states senate have some experience with legislative procedure, and that voters will at least raise an eyebrow to someone who has none. but one of buck's biggest assets in his campaign: he's a small-town prosecutor who's not been tainted by the corruption "inherent" in political seats. great.
in fact, this notion is antithetical to a fundamental principle of our governmental system; as a republican democracy, legislation is expressly the duty of elected officials who are considered better qualified than the general public to make legal decisions. the "joe the plumber" phenomenon marked maybe the most direct attack on this idea that our law-makers might know more about what legislation will work (and what won't) than, well, a plumber from ohio. this is also paralleled by the waves of anti-intellectual sentiment that have been rippling through american culture recently (i'm thinking specifically of some voters' skepticism over barack obama's law degree... from harvard). i'll admit that our legislators' disconnection from the everyday lives of their constituents is a valid concern, but i'm not convinced that ousting and alienating ourselves from those legislators - who, for better or worse, know every twist, turn and caveat of the law-making process - is the wisest course of action. imagine a chamber-full of rookies charged with untangling the bureaucratic mess that winds through the halls of congress.
but ultimately, buck's (and his supporters') disdain for washington elitism pales in comparison to the way his comments seem to show a huge disregard for the legislative process in general, one in which ideas are discussed and debated, with respect and thoughtful deliberation and discussion. i don't mean to suggest that mr. buck is unique in his apparent willingness to let anger and frustration overpower his ability to discuss rationally and respectfully: the idea of democratic deliberation is one with debatable efficacy in american politics, and the filibuster is an example of procedurally admissible discussion-halting. but turning your back on a seat into which you've been elected hardly seems like a responsible approach. whatever happened to listening to your opponent's point of view, even if just to argue against it more effectively? this is a principle i teach to freshmen in college, on how to make a strong case... consider the opposing argument. apparently mr. buck (and those who share his evasion of unpleasant discussion) missed that lesson in freshman comp. and even if mr. buck's comments were only politically-motivated, appealing to a voter-base that identifies chiefly as "anti-big-government," they fan the fire of a disturbing trend toward a perhaps partially justified, but what will become an ultimately debilitating suspicion of experience and expertise.
No comments:
Post a Comment