At the moment it is unfortunate that the majority of issue input I an receiving is decidedly of a progressive and/or Democratic perspective. To balance I pay extra attention my opponent's sites and what they provide. And from the news outlets that are strong on providing mainly, or only, a conservative perspective.
It is to obtain this balance so as to produce better resolutions that I continue to request my opponents embrace the concpet of cooperative campaigning and issue resolution. I also monitor as much news as possible. As homework. Something I had really thought Iwas done with once I left college. :-)
It is suppose to be up to those represented what those sent to Washington to speak for them champion. I believe that modern communications advances allow us to return to a format where these ongoing discussions can be maintained. When the country was founded in each election the candidates were able to meet the majority of the represented because the populations were small. As the numbers exploded there was the need for more impersonal contact through the means of the expanding free press.
That was where the monetary input started to excessively distort the process. But now we see how quickly a valid message can pass through the population. An additional example of this being the speed with which ordinary people, and legal professionals, appeared at the airports when the first Travel ban was dropped on us. Issue after unpopular issue pushed by the current dominant party has seen righteously outraged constituents outside the offices of those who are expected to do the exceptional without excuses.
I will start with the issues that my currently identified party opponents have once again been put out there to divide our votes. I will add in my approach on each issue, as I am still one of the represented. But most important will be when people start responding and contributing to the discussion on each issue. From these responses will be established what priority to assign these issues. A Representative has a limited amount of time, staff, and other limiting resources at hand.
Most important, and a step not conducted by party candidates, is locking down what will define an acceptable fulfillment of those issues. One thing I learned as a truck driver was that, of you did not know exactly where to be, and when to be there, you did not make your delivery.
When there is talk of bringing business practices to politics there is one tool that seems to be totally missed. Anyone who does project management knows that the Problem to be solved, the Opportunity to be explored or the Challenge to be addressed only establishes the basic direction in which to head. The final goal must be defined in measurable and specific terms. Once you know exactly where to go you can then establish where you are starting from. And work out how to get from where you start to where you must end. Then you determine timetables, responsibilities and who is accountable at each stage.
This is the approach I will urge my fellow representatives to employ. While it is my obligation to assemble the desires of those I will represent, the same is true of these future colleagues. And from that next level of many we should be bringing forth one solution that addresses all diverse concerns in reasonable proportion.
In the spectrum of results I might achieve at the “hope for the best” end would be getting enough kindred spirits so that majority rule in the House is not possible without our support. We being able to determine at the least who can be confirmed Speaker of the House. And see some ending to the practice of having committees all chaired by just the majority party.
At the “plan for the worst” end of the spectrum would be me there alone just trying to be the squeaky wheel that sets an example for the 2020 elections. I must accept that either I will be a pathetic footnote in the history of the 2018 elections, or I will be validated and any solid ideas I come up with get some sort of exposure and implementation. It will all be in the hands of those I hope to represent.
In the process of undergoing the onslaught of daily political news we are all now subjected to each daily news cycle I have been forced to think on just what defines acceptable government performance. Given we clearly are not seeing levels of exceptional performance worthy of the unique and great experiment our founders provided us with.
The short answer I have concluded is that government should be noticed about as much as officials at a major sporting event. You notice them only when close calls must be made, or they miss and make a bad call. We have been noticing our representation in Washington a lot of late. And not for making any close calls.
A juxtaposition of what I was taught government should be with what it seems to be these days has lead me to conclude our American Democracy requires five keys to operate well. There must be a functional Congress, a competent Administration, a diligent Judiciary, an informative Press and an involved Electorate.
As first among equals a functional Congress has to be showing up and performing its constitutional obligations. The authority that has to be involved to hold them to account when they fall short is the Electorate. To do its part the Electorate must be provided sound and vetted information from an informative and reliable Free Press. When that is in place the Congress oversees that the Administration is performing in a competent manner. And by properly vetting the appoints to the Judiciary sees that we have as impartial and fair a legal system as possible.
I have also come to realize that the concept that those who do not vote every election are not properly participating is not valid. As written at the start in my version of a properly performed governing we should not be noticing much except when government is failing to get its jobs done right. Those who see something amiss are the ones to start saying something. And when needed do something. What is happening very often now with the massive protests by thve youth and the women at the least.
Votes cast these days only out of a sense of party loyalty without consideration of the facts dilute the efforts of the truly concerned. Issues should be at the heart of voter participation. But the current party process is to lock on to issues and not solve them so as not to see supporters drop off when the issue is solved.
Both our legal system and electoral system are based on an adversarial premise. That opposing views will in the end burn away the false crust until a true conclusion is the result. From the many we work to the one. If we can adjust our process so that we work together to define that common goal that satisfies all involved we can embrace opposing views, as labeled these days as Liberal at one end, Conservative at the other, and with numerous shadings in between.
I do not approve of the concept of compromise in this process. Cooperation and coordination to achieve a common objective is a better standard to strive for. An exceptional ambition in regards to governing means the governed both deserve and should always demand better.
I find nothing as specific as what I present here on opposing sites. The good intentions are there. But true solutions are in the details. Please pass on to me any contradictions to these first sweeps.