BY CHARLES ALEXANDER
Witness any political debate, be it in your living room, around
the table at Thanksgiving, in the office, or even at a church social.
The lines of division usually are clearly marked, to the point
where it seems as though agreement on any point is impossible.
Frustrating though it may be, as we “agree to disagree”, one
sentiment seems to cross most dividing lines.
“They’re all crooks,” we often hear somebody say in exasperation.
This is more than just an attempt to defuse the conflict; it’s a
reflection of what many of us believe, to one extent or another.
For the record, they most probably are not all crooks; however,
it’s easy to see how some of them may be tempted to, at the
very least, blur ethical lines in the name of personal gain. Few
enter the public arena with large fortunes; fewer still retire with
modest ones, or heaven forefend, none at all.
Fingers are pointed at large corporations, whose lobbying
largesse influences legislation. It is not hard to connect the
dots between campaign contributions and legislative influence.
Interestingly, in spite of the sentiment that “they’re all crooks”,
we usually blame the lobbyist for buying what is for sale, instead
of blaming the legislator who gladly assigns it a price tag.
As much as we decry this type of “backroom dealing”, as we call
it, we allow it to continue. We throw our hands up in frustration,
blaming “the system”. What is the system?
We are accustomed to hearing that a politician’s main function
is to get re-elected. Why? It seems indeed circular to run for an
office whose primary objective is to keep the incumbent firmly
in place. Obviously, the answer lies deeper than that; the main
reason for maintaining incumbency is power. Power buys what
money cannot. It also leads to money.
The “system” encourages bright-eyed dreamers to run for office,
to “make a difference”. Some aspire to noble service, others
covet the trappings of power. The first lesson that a successful
candidate learns is that those who occupy the seats of power
demand fealty. Thus, whatever your agenda might be, it must
necessarily be subservient to those who are in charge. Fail to toe
the party line, as it were, and your agenda will be swept aside,
you will be locked out of debate, and “the party” will not support
your re-election.
Stop “
Eating
” What They Feed You!
That’s how we find ourselves in a world where the presumptive
nominee for President receives the rather hollow endorsement
of “it’s his turn”.
Jim McKelvey believes that the answer is not to keep sending
fierce combatants into the fray, hoping for a different result.
Instead, he favors a concept that seems to be a simple solution to
all of the above: term limits.
If the name sounds familiar, it should. McKelvey posted an
unsuccessful bid for Congress in 2010, running in the Republican
primary for the 5th District in a field of seven. The ultimate
nominee is the sitting Congressman, Robert Hurt.
McKelvey’s platform was simple: return the government of the
United States to the people. Although hardly a novel approach,
he campaigned on a promise of serving just one term, and then
returning home. He went so far as to announce that he would
not accept a paycheck for his service; if issued one he promised
to donate the money to a local charity.
Jim learned an important lesson in that primary election: The
guy with the most money usually wins. When he ran, he refused
to accept campaign donations from PACs, businesses, and
wealthy individuals. He did not want to feel beholden to them, as
he believes so many are.
“If these politicians want to stay in office,” he says, “they keep
their donors happy.”
McKelvey had raised the second largest fund in that campaign.
He came in second. The man who came out on top had the
largest war chest. It’s not necessarily an indictment of anyone in
particular, but it illustrates an inescapable fact: There’s big money
in politics, and therefore, raising campaign funds becomes all too
important to anyone seeking election, or re-election.
He later ran in the primary election for the Virgina House of
Delegates seat that was vacated by Lacey Putney in 2013, and lost
that race as well. This contest underscored his frustration with
the Republican party, which frowned on his stance on lowering
taxes. The victor in that race had supported a major tax increase
in Virginia, and went on to win the general election.
Jim has noticed from his conversations with others that there is
a growing sense of dissatisfaction among the general populace
with their elected representatives. “I’m fed up with politicians,
both Democrat and Republican alike, and I think most people
would agree with me… hence the reason why 80 percent of us
support term limits.”
He realizes that there is a major obstacle. “The only way that
we’re going to correct the present situation in Washington and
Richmond, is to fire our politicans en masse. Because they are
not paying attention to us; they’re paying attention to the two
parties… and they will never permit us to vote on term limits…
because they are afraid that we are going to take away their jobs.”
The idea that our elected representatives would undertake to
vote themselves out of their own political careers is certainly a
maddening paradox. The alternative is to keep voting them out
of office, which seems easier said than done.
One oft-repeated argument against it is, “But my Congressman is
doing a really good job.” Perhaps, but if that assessment is based
on the amount of Federal largesse he/she brings home, it merely
illustrates a different aspect of the same problem.
Voting out all incumbents is a grand notion; the biggest problem
with it is people’s natural refusal to cross party lines. It’s
perfectly understandable. Even with a less than stellar candidate,
the battle cry is, “I’m going to hold my nose and vote”… not so
much in support of their party’s candidate, as in opposition to
the other’s. Here again, we have a vicious cycle. People often vote
for “the lesser of two evils”, complaining that they have no real
choices.
Jim McKelvey has a solution:
Primary elections.
“The person you want to elect is not the person who wants that position. You want to find the person
who doesn’t want it. And then you have to convince them to run and then elect them, because those
people are going to do what has to get done, and then go home. The person who wants the position
wants to change things, whether for personal gain, or whatever.”
FEDUP?
Discover Smith Mountain Lake
SUMMER 2015
8
9
Discover Smith Mountain Lake
Winter 2015
