Recently, I attended a 45-year high school reunion. My classmates have lived long enough to have married, remarried, have grandchildren, and retired. We drank, ate, drank a little more and conversed on a multitude of topics. Some were Democrats, some Republicans, a few did not declare and the rest really did not give a damn. The commonality of interest was our shared interest in community, family, and the general state of present affairs. Our opinions differed, but though out the differing there prevailed a standard of tolerance and a consistency of extending outward for understanding.
Of course non of the classmates were interested in power for the sake of power, nor were they interested in positioning an earmark for some direct or indirect gain; not one of the reunion attendees were under the influence of some special interest, including the special interest of a governing agency or department vying to increase its budget or alter present operating limitations, not one of my classmates jeered another for political reasons. Indeed, comradeship was the sole objective; therefore, my assumption is that humankind will function in a relative state of bliss as long as there is no real and measurable objective to fight over.
It therefore follows that if there is a particular issue of concern strife and friction is the natural state of human behavior. That said one should understand the natural state of humankind and set expectations accordingly. Withstanding my believe that strife and friction is the natural order of human behavior; if the issue is to pander to a particular voting constituency, or to buy votes with stupid promises, I have evidenced an exception; the exception functions when legislator’s insist on setting aside logic, the sense of the common, as well as, founded institutional precedence, so to implement a design or concept. Such is particularly exampled by application of these designs or concepts to domestic policy making. For instance, the strongest of my concerns regarding domestic policy making is congress’s practice of consistently engaging in the rule of: Unintended Consequences. For example, many years ago legislators decided that those with less, than those with more, could not benefit from the joys of home ownership as fairly or equally. So these magnanimous ones created a government funded, private-publicly traded company to administrate the purchasing of home mortgages; the Democrats took credit, the Republicans, fearing political retribution, aided and enabled the establishment of the unsustainable; all knowingly, with purposeful intent, transformed the ideal of social-economic equivalency into a huge contingent liability. The legislators acted despite recognizing that the real-only underwriter was the US Taxpayer…these are the geniuses we have representing the interest of the American peoples.
I think I would like congress to be made of Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and a few of those who really don’t give a damn. I would like this mixture of differing to do nothing or close to nothing; at the most I would like them to eliminate, with the exception of those persons, agencies, and departments that are designed to protect; at least most of the agencies, departments, and monopolies within government.
Of course this is impossible. Such action would eliminate taxpayer funding of thousands of attorneys, accountants, and lucrative federal-state- county- city staff positions. Well, the reunion of old classmates was fun…