The Republic Form of Government: Our Great Experiment

Our form of government is not a democracy, but a republic. A small number of elected officials make policy, laws and thus, decisions affecting the population as a whole. The third most populous nation in the world, fewer than 1,000 people make decisions affecting more than 300,000,000 souls.

Now we are engaged in a great debate whether this form of government will stand. Today's press and blogosphere is full of reports of extreme voter resentment of congress.

Why? Because we did not elect a Liberal President Obama (who ran as a centrist) and the rest to socialize our health care system, nor to stimulate handgun sales, nor to stimulate cronyism. The people of this country do not want it, nor do they want the rest of the hash that the idiots in DC are slinging. Yet, there is no accountability. What will our dear leaders do this recess? Fly around in new jets?

Iowahawk has his own special take:

Over two hundred years ago, America's founding fathers established a constitutional republic based on the audacious notion that the interests of its citizens would be best served by a wise body of their democratically-elected representatives. In the two centuries that have since transpired, that bold experiment has largely been a success. But we should also realize our system only works when the interests of voters and their government are in harmony. Unfortunately, recent evidence suggests that America's hard-working hometown legislators are feeling the pinch from a fickle and increasingly out-of-touch voter class who no longer serves our needs.

A recent Rasmussen tracking poll showed American Voters getting a paltry 23% approval rating from members of Congress and the Executive branch, and only 17% from members of the media. The toxic atmosphere caused by out-of-touch voters has been especially corrosive for Washington's youngest legislative aides and undersecretaries, many of whom now express outright cynicism and contempt for our system of unelected and unaccountable citizens.

If the main-stream media thinks the voters are upset, just wait until August 22nd. That is the day of the official Recess Rally against socialized health care.

Meanwhile, out in California...

While the question over elected official accountability plays itself out in every federal congressional district, in every state capital, out in California another experiment is running. Consider the plight of one Anthony Adams, California State Assembly Republican Member. He signed a pre-election promise not to raise taxes:

I, Anthony Adams, pledge to the taxpayers of the 59th Assembly district of the State of California and to all the people of this state, that I will oppose and vote against any and all efforts to increase taxes.

He then voted for the largest tax increase in the history of California, the largest state tax increase in the history of the nation, one of only six republicans to do so.

Now he is facing a recall similar to the one that ousted Gray Davis. Adams has solicited big bucks from minority interests, ostensibly ones that benefited from the tax hikes for which he voted. In his justification, he noted that "California is in a place where they need people who are willing to sacrifice their own personal agenda for what's right." Apparently what is right is to forcibly redistribute wealth. California has 32% of the nation's welfare cases.

California seems to be almost unique in the ability to recall elected officials, or at least one of the few states where the ability has been exercised. Will the recall succeed? I don't know, but it is worth watching. Perhaps it will catch on... although we need 'instant recall' to really make a difference.

One thing is for sure, the main-stream media is finding itself in the uncomfortable position of reporting on a republican being skewered for abandoning his 'no-tax' pledge, his parties principles, all to satisfy the minority interests in Sacramento. Just like Bush 41. Should be a slam dunk for a recall, no?