America's Greatest Check and Balance

Any civic-minded American simply must be energized tonight. Granted, some are animated by frustration and others by elation. But if you're not delighted to be an American right now then something is wrong with you.

The victory of Republican Scott Brown to fill the late Ted Kenney's Senate seat in Massachusetts is as vital as politics get on this planet. It is testimony to the health of the country's greatest check and balance.

If you recall from civics class in high school, the United States federal government has three checks and balances, the three branches of government. Executive Branch - the President. Legislative Branch - House of Representatives and Senate. Judicial Branch - Courts, including Supreme Court. But there is another, more powerful check and balance. "We the people of the United States of America."

This is why Nicholas Kristof (whose columns I often appreciate) could have been tweeting from a reading room in the British Library when he said, "With a Brown win, the best health reform option is for the House to pass the exact Senate bill, so it doesn't go back to the Senate." Kristof is living in the wrong country, if he really thinks this is the best course of action. He must not believe in the greatest of the four checks and balances, we the people. With Brown's win, the nation is telling President Obama and the Democratic party to put on the brakes, not to brazenly run a red light.

And do not forget how the greatest check and balance works. Equitably. It sent President George W. Bush away from Washington D.C. with a national sigh of relief. The collective voice of the people of the United States does not discriminate among political parties.

David Brooks was right when he wrote this morning, "Americans are an unusual people, with less deference to central authority and an unparalleled faith in themselves. They seem to want a government that is helpful but not imperious, strong but subordinate."

When a political party gains substantial control in the United States and uses that control as a "mandate," be assured that the people of the United States will react against that party. Bush misunderstood national unity in the wake of 9/11 as a "mandate" to pursue war and restrict liberties. Obama misunderstood the national reaction against the Bush administration's arrogance as a "mandate" to pursue his agenda. Guess what? Americans don't like that. Americans do not tolerate that.

If there is a downside to the fourth and greatest check and balance, it is this. We the people trend toward passivity. The extremely conservative Tea Party movement is a case in point. For example, they complain about national debt, but were they complaining about national debt when Bush was cutting taxes and adding unfunded entitlements? No. Times were good, citizens were passive. Thus we the people sometimes sit idle, helping to bring on the circumstances that will eventually awaken us with fire in our throats. We should be willing to chasten ourselves for this behavior.

There are two circumstances in the course of events that will rouse the American people to powerful action. 1. A threat to our country's freedom and 2. Arrogance by our country's political leaders. Not in every case, but throughout our country's relatively short history, we have not tolerated oppression or imperiousness.

Bonus: If you've made it this far, I'll add a bonus commentary. Presently we are too caught up in the swing from extremely liberal to extremely conservative, back to extremely liberal and so on. The great American political leader of the twenty-first century, if we ever get one, will be the person who awakens Americans, not for a short-term rally in the direction of conservatism or liberalism, but for a longer-term purpose. And that purpose, in my opinion, would be to wake up the American people to the need to reign in the excessively greedy nature of American-style capitalism, which has led to near ruination of our economies, communities, environments, and more.

Comments

[Cory Verner]

Amen to the "bonus commentary".

[guynameddave]

I think David Brooks is right on in this follow up. His comparison with a hypothetical Bush situation is excellent:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/what-the-results-in-massachusetts-mean/

[guynameddave]

And to prove my point even further:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/21/us/AP-US-Supreme-Court-Campaign-Finance.html

[ET]

How can the nation be telling the President anything if only voters in one state are participating?