The Sage Grouse

The Problem With Elections is Re-Election

The problem with democracy and elections is that the winner spends his entire term fending off attacks from the losers, rendering him largely ineffective.

There are exceptions, like Ronald Reagan.

Bill Clinton’s presidency was messed up by several problems. First, if you fall on the health care reform sword during your first term, next the GOP spends gazillions on the supposed Whitewater scandal, then you trip over your appendage with a voluptuous intern, and then self-righteously deny the transgression? The combination of these influences effectively neutered major policy moves in the Clinton administration.

On NPR, I heard a Democratic community organizer from Chicago celebrate the failure of the Congressional super committee to surpass politics and make policy. He wanted the committee to fail because he wanted no cuts in bloated government spending. Maybe he should join the Tea Party.

The Founders invented checks and balances. They had suffered under King George, leading to a deep distrust of unchecked authority. Footnote: if someone had presented the Founders with the idea of creating the EPA, the proponents would have been put in stocks.

Back to unchecked authority. (Well actually the EPA IS unchecked authority.) Jefferson, his friends and frenemies created checks and balances. They did not want the government, in response to panics of the moment, to quickly enact improvident laws. Good idea.

They invented a House of Representatives which had to stand for election every two years, meaning that their entire careers would be consumed by campaigning. They invented a Senate which provided some respite from campaigning. They invented a Presidency which required campaigning every four years, which means that the President must campaign for most of the third year and all of the fourth year of his four-year term.

I ask the Tea Party and the Liberal Establishment this question: Does any of this make sense?

[polldaddy poll=5755246]

REPUBLISH THIS STORY: For details on how you can republish this story or other WyoFile content for free, click here.

— If you enjoyed this article and would like to see more quality Wyoming journalism, please consider supporting WyoFile: a non-partisan, non-profit news organization dedicated to in-depth reporting on Wyoming’s people, places and policy.

Leave a comment

WyoFile's goal is to provide readers with information and ideas that foster constructive conversations about the issues and opportunities our communities face. One small piece of how we do that is by offering a space below each story for readers to share perspectives, experiences and insights. For this to work, we need your help.

What we're looking for: 

  • Your real name — first and last. 
  • Direct responses to the article. Tell us how your experience relates to the story.
  • The truth. Share factual information that adds context to the reporting.
  • Thoughtful answers to questions raised by the reporting or other commenters.
  • Tips that could advance our reporting on the topic.
  • No more than three comments per story, including replies. 

What we block from our comments section, when we see it:

  • Pseudonyms. WyoFile stands behind everything we publish, and we expect commenters to do the same by using their real name.
  • Comments that are not directly relevant to the article. 
  • Demonstrably false claims, what-about-isms, references to debunked lines of rhetoric, professional political talking points or links to sites trafficking in misinformation.
  • Personal attacks, profanity, discriminatory language or threats.
  • Arguments with other commenters.

Other important things to know: 

  • Appearing in WyoFile’s comments section is a privilege, not a right or entitlement. 
  • We’re a small team and our first priority is reporting. Depending on what’s going on, comments may be moderated 24 to 48 hours from when they’re submitted — or even later. If you comment in the evening or on the weekend, please be patient. We’ll get to it when we’re back in the office.
  • We’re not interested in managing squeaky wheels, and even if we wanted to, we don't have time to address every single commenter’s grievance. 
  • Try as we might, we will make mistakes. We’ll fail to catch aliases, mistakenly allow folks to exceed the comment limit and occasionally miss false statements. If that’s going to upset you, it’s probably best to just stick with our journalism and avoid the comments section.
  • We don’t mediate disputes between commenters. If you have concerns about another commenter, please don’t bring them to us.

The bottom line:

If you repeatedly push the boundaries, make unreasonable demands, get caught lying or generally cause trouble, we will stop approving your comments — maybe forever. Such moderation decisions are not negotiable or subject to explanation. If civil and constructive conversation is not your goal, then our comments section is not for you. 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *