Bill Clinton made himself look like a fool when he questioned what the meaning of "is" is. I don't want to go there. Still, the meaning of terminology can and does vary often, and this causes no end of problems. One I've been pondering lately is the term "representation". You know ... the classic "No taxation without representation!" cry from the days of the American Revolution.
What does "representation" mean? According to dictionaries, it basically means for one thing to stand for something else, as in a symbol. Yes, I guess that's the idea. In government, it is when someone with your interests at heart stands for you in the government. The Colonials didn't have anyone standing for them when Great Britain was taxing them. No one argued their case. No one upheld their point of view. No one expressed their concerns. So they were taxed without ever having been heard.
Out on the Internet there are many places you can go to take political tests. They'll tell you where you lie on the political spectrum. I've taken several of these tests over the last year and was actually quite surprised to find that I'm classified as a centrist. One of these sites actually commented, "There is no political party that represents your views."
It begs the question. As we look at the candidates for president this year, do any of them actually represent my views? Now, of course, that's just one man, so it's not particularly surprising that there isn't a candidate that represents my views. So how about the halls of Congress? Between the Senate and the House of Representatives, there are 535 people who are attempting to represent Americans. Surely someone in that 535 people shares my views and concerns. Well, perhaps there is, but if there is, I don't know who it is. I've never voted for someone who did because I've never been offered someone who did (and, most often, the people I vote who in some ways vaguely resemble my views rarely get elected). So it begs the question ... am I being taxed without representation?
I know. It's likely not an entirely fair question. Some will say, "There is a representative for you in government," and they would be technically correct. Still, you have to think, "Does our government really represent our people, or is it only an extremely limited representation?" Living in a Republic makes sense, but when we settle for that form of government, it is a given that segments of society will not be represented. It is odd, however, that one of the "extremes" that doesn't get represented is the "center".
3 comments:
I took this quiz, and it placed me between capitalist and libertarian - just outside the centrist circle. I might dispute its accuracy ...
But I have to admit there is not one candidate that represents my views and beliefs.
Two things concern me more. One, year after year we are given a slate of candidates - none of whom are particularly exciting or appealing. Just about all of whom operate on the level of soundbytes and projected appearances. It seems that people who are sane, decent, and competent at the same time don't generally run for office, and can't get out of the starting gate when they do. Second, I would be content if leaders who didn't represent me would also not actively take advantage of me or cause harm - if these would be more modest in their ambitions. But that is also seldom the case.
Oh, wouldn't that be nice? Wouldn't it be great if, since it appears we can't get a candidate that would represent us, we could at least get people in office who wouldn't hurt us? I wonder if they should take some sort of oath ... you know, "Do no harm." Yeah, right. Then there would be no one we could elect ...
"First do no harm" has been my general philosophy for evaluating both church related and political actions.
Many people take the opposite track - do something ... anything .... But that is not, IMO, sound. Doing something to make the latter situation worse than it was before is always a mistake.
But yes, our choice of representatives would be severely limited were we to apply that standard.
Post a Comment