How "Public Servants" Became "Politicians," etc.

The news from (and about) Congress has been pretty dismal of late, and surveys tell us repeatedly that politicians are considered to be among the least ethical and trusted of characters, in some cases ranking below child molesters and - gasp! - used-car salesmen, and only slightly above telemarketers. An old pun tells us that the very term politics derives from the Greek words poly ("many") and tics ("bloodsucking creatures").

MAGAts say they love Der Furor because he's "not a politician," as if the fact that he's an utterly self-centered and proudly immature con artist, misogynist, liar, and general waste of DNA is as important as his complete lack of public service experience, empathy, and general gravitas.

So riddle me this, Batman: how did politicians come to be so detested? When did the people we once looked up to as public servants become bureaucrats or, worse, politicians?

Part of it, I think, is a general distaste for the messy legislative work of a representative democracy that tries to balance the interests of as many disparate groups as possible. If you don't believe your views are being adequately represented and advanced by your elected representative, or that they have signed on to a compromise with which you disagree, they cease to be a public servant and turn into a politician.

Another reason is probably the growth in the size of the population being represented by a fixed number of elected representatives. A House capped at 435 seats by the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 has caused the number of constituents per Representative to skyrocket - this chart shows, as of 2020, the number of constituents per Representative ... Montana, with one Representative, has the highest ratio with over 994,000:1; the lowest ratio is in Rhode Island, at about 528,000:1 ... in Virginia, where I live, the ratio is about in the middle, with 731,000:1. How on earth can a single elected Representative hear and respond to that many constituents with a wide range of needs and interests? Although I write regularly to my Representative (and my Senators) on issues about which I care, I know they would never recognize me if I met them on the street ... and how can I know that understand my concerns? It's easy to feel that your vote doesn't really matter to that politician.

And, of course, there's the whole money thing. Running for Congress is expensive, and the people who funnel lots of money into campaigns in ways both legal and illegal, ethical and unethical, want a return on their investment. Good luck getting your voice heard when it's being drowned out by the whirring sound of hundred-dollar bills flying through banks of counting machines.

All this is really sad, especially when we consider that we need elected officials to represent our interests and try to balance them with those of others in search of a workable common ground. For all the whining and bitching on the right about an oppressive government trampling the freedom of hard-working Americans, we have the imperfect government that the Founders established with our Constitution. Unfortunately, the way the Founders structured the government - while good in theory - has resulted in gridlock and enabled the tyranny of the minority ... not to mention that the vague and archaic language of the Constitution has provided centuries of full employment to lawyers and political commentators. 

The Preamble to the Constitution explains why the Founders realized that we need a functioning government: 

"... in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity ..."

I think we can all agree that the goals of the Founders in ordain(ing) and establish(ing) the Constitution have been, at best, imperfectly met. A more perfect Union is threatened by self-segregation into angry red and blue spheres; Justice has been established for those able to afford the best legal representation and select the right judge to hear their case; domestic Tranquility is a still-to-be-realized dream threatened by vast numbers of guns and a population willing to believe hogwash and unwilling to engage in rational argument; the common defence is in good shape against foreign threats, but less so against our heavily-armed and angry fellow citizens; the general Welfare depends on one's economic station and ability to afford food, housing, and medical care; and the blessings of liberty remain unevenly distributed by race, religion, and class.

We elect public servants to try to achieve the lofty goals of the Constitution, but they must act as politicians in order to (1) get elected in the first place and (2) accomplish anything once elected. The best of them work hard to serve the needs and interests of their constituents within the parameters of principled compromise; the worst of them are useless, bloviating showboats* who accomplish nothing but filling angry air time on partisan media.

How do we turn politicians back into public servants? There are a few things we can do.

The most obvious is to take the money out of the system by publicly funding our elections. We must stop allowing special interests, big business, and the ultra-wealthy to purchase a government that works only for them. Sadly, this will never happen, as the ability to change things rests firmly in the hands of those whose interests are best served by the status quo.

Another is to strictly enforce ethical rules for elected officials ... and for the Supreme Court, while we're at it. Nothing turns a public servant into a politician faster than the shameless desire to cash in on the public trust.

We could reintroduce mandatory education in civics in our elementary and high schools. This will also never happen, for two reasons: (1) many Americans reflexively oppose making anything mandatory**, and (2) there's a wide range of opinions on what constitutes good civic behavior**.

Finally, we could - gasp! - realize that a nation like ours, with a form of government like ours, is never, ever, going to satisfy everybody, and that the best outcome of our differences is a grudging realization that we're trying to do the best we can with the tools we have. Sadly, it's hard to do that when we're yelling at each other.

Okay, I'm done. I've run out of gas. The choir has been duly preached to, and it's time to think about pleasant things like my grandchildren, breakfast, and the garden.

Have a good day. Be civil. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* Yes, Empty G, Lauren Boebert, Jim Jordan, Ted Cruz, Ron Johnson, etc, etc - I'm talking to you.

** Even measures to ensure public health and safety. Go figure.

*** Consider that many Republicans claim that the violent storming of the Capitol on January 6, 2021, was "legitimate political discourse," and that a former president remains famous for his demeaning and violent rhetoric characterizing his opponents in the most vile and debasing of terms. And what does the Constitution actually SAY, anyhow (see the first cartoon above).