The strength & problem of American democracy

By Lorraine Collins

As one who has been an observer and occasional participant in local, state, and national politics since the Eisenhower administration, it's been kind of hard for me to sober up after the most recent election. Election years offer a real high for those of us who are referred to as political junkies, and now we have to wait two whole years for another fix. Normal people are immensely relieved that they don't have to pay attention to all this for a blissful two years.

Well, actually, of course, this isn't exactly true, because the next campaign began on November 3rd, so far as I know. I studied political science in college and very nearly majored in the subject until I fell back on the safer degree in English, having been convinced by  my academic friends that political science just wasn't worthy of serious study.

Boy, were they ever wrong. If anything deserves study in this or any country it is how and why governments are formed, how and whether the consent of the governed is achieved, and how much influence people with money and power exert on the electorate. This has been a good year to think about that in the United States and in this quiet and essentially neighborly state. Just think of the millions of dollars spent in South Dakota's Congressional election, and ask who was so eager to spend it, and why. Does this have anything to do with South Dakota, or with agendas established elsewhere?

It was a tough election for Democrats in South Dakota but they can at least take comfort in the fact that since Republicans more or less own and control the state, it is their responsibility to solve all the myriad problems we have and if that doesn't happen, it's their fault. In South Dakota and the rest of the nation, so far as I know, nobody wants to raise taxes or eliminate services. So it's going to be really tricky to figure out how to do one without the other.

As for Congress, it's going to be interesting for those of us who are political junkies to see what happens between now and the convening of the next Congress in January. They might actually come together to do something in the lame duck session. It's kind of hard to imagine this, but maybe they can practice being civil to each other, which would be nice.

The other night I heard a TV pundit talking about the election, saying that the main effect had been to rid Congress of most of the moderates. A lot of moderate Democrats, like Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, for instance, lost their seats in Congress, so the only Democrats left, I heard, are those most liberal, from safe liberal constituencies. Meanwhile, many moderate, main stream Republicans who ran in the primaries had already been defeated by the so called "Tea Party" sponsored candidates, some of whom have radically conservative ideas.

So what we have left in Congress are left wing Democrats and right wing Republicans. If that's true, does anybody expect these people to come to any sense of compromise and moving forward to solve problems for the sake the Republic?

We in South Dakota have a sort of tradition of discarding the people we've sent to Washington about the time they achieve some expertise and clout, complaining that they have "lost touch" with the homefolks. Republican Larry Pressler and Democrat Tom Daschle are recent examples and the same charge was made against Herseth Sandlin.  Frankly, I think one thing that happens in the "throw them out" orgy, is that we discard a lot of people with considerable experience in trying to achieve compromise, trying to arrive at a consensus. This is what successful politicians do and how good laws can be made.

 But though we want professional accountants, doctors, artists, writers, lawyers, we don't seem to want professional politicians. That may be the strength of American representative democracy, but it's also the problem.

Lorraine Collins is a writer who lives in Spearfish. She can be reached at collins1@rushmore.com.

Barney & Chris....but where's the media?

As we've continued to monitor the bailout of banks, insurance companies, and now the automobile industry, it truly does make one wonder: where does it end?

I remain heartened by the voting of Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South Dakota's at-large U.S. Representative, who seems to "get it" regarding proposed bailouts. In any event, she is smart enough to know that a huge number of her constituents are appalled at the notion of constantly going to the taxpayers to "solve" problems created largely by these industries themselves. Once again, she has wisely voted to reject a bailout, despite her colleagues passing the $14 billion package.

~

Consumers have not been entirely innocent in this nonsense. Many Americans have bought in to the notion that we are "entitled" to houses we can't afford, luxury cars that say more about who we want to be than who we are, and that personal responsibility is a cute notion -- but outdated.

We all share some responsibility for our national financial woes. Some more than others. I am amazed at how quickly the media has glossed over the conflicts of interest involving key politicians who've enjoyed cozy relationships and profitable perks from the industries they now want to bail out. That would be a cue for these two characters: U.S. Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, who wields too much unchecked power as Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, and U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.

While they feign making things tough for their wealthy friends in finance and the monied moguls back in Detroit, their own complicity with those screaming for bailouts is deafening.

Let us hope that the "plain folks" back in their Massachusetts and Connecticut districts will one day soon overcome the power and influence of monied interests and send these two bureaucrats packing. They've fed at the public trough -- without much accountablity -- far too long.

We remain hopeful that the Senate will do an about face from its previous position on bailouts and banish the idea of an auto industry bailout to where it belongs -- the auto junkyard.

Rupert Murdoch....pay attention!

Lost in all of the election rhetoric permeating the media this week was a rather quiet but important vote in the United States Senate. The American public sent a message to Rupert Murdoch and other corporate barons – delivered by our elected U. S. Senators – that we’ve had enough media consolidation in this country and that it’s time to put a lid on it.

It was a roll call vote, so there’s no way of knowing who voted for or against Senate Joint Resolution 28, but we understand that it was a near-unanimous decision. The resolution effectively rebuffs the Federal Communications Commission ruling last December allowing more cross ownership of newspapers and television stations in this country.

As we have opined in the past, growing media consolidation has several negative outcomes, including fewer and fewer truly local broadcast outlets. Left unchecked, the race for bigger bottom lines would further erode what we used to have abundantly in this country -- really good local media services. There are other problems, too, and a few are spelled out in this New York Times story of May 16, 2008.

Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota spearheaded adoption of SJR 28 and deserves much credit for its passage. It’s interesting to note that Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are among the 27 co-sponsors of the resolution. It should be recognized, however, that this was a bi-partisan effort.

The next battleground is in the House of Representatives, and we’ll be looking for South Dakota Representative Stephanie Herseth Sandlin to step up and support HJR 79, introduced by two Washington state Congressmen, Democrat Jay Inslee and Republican Dave Reichert.

We’re contacting Representative Herseth Sandlin with our views supporting HJR 79 and hope others will do the same.

Earmarks Top Ten! - Oink Oink!

The end justifies the means. As long as we go home with the bacon.

That seems to be the stance taken by our South Dakota congressional delegation to criticism that South Dakota ranks in the top 10 states for receiving federal earmarks. The rankings are the handiwork of the Citizens Against Government Waste, which annually identifies political pork in their “Congressional Pig Book.” It's worth reading.

Senators John Thune and Tim Johnson along with Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin wasted no time in defending earmarks. The Rapid City Journal this morning (4/3/08) said Herseth Sandlin agreed with her counterparts in the Senate that earmarks pay for “essentials,” not waste, in South Dakota.

It is apparently lost on Herseth Sandlin and our Senators that it’s not the projects that are funded to which many of us necessarily object, it’s HOW they’re chosen and funded. Like it or not, earmarks are outside an appropriate budgetary process. Simply put, earmarks are bad public policy.

If earmarks are the only way South Dakota and other states can obtain legitimate federal funding for “essentials,” we are, indeed, in deep political do-do. And, unfortunately, members of Congress will never apologize for “bringing home the bacon,” much less change the way they do the public's business.

They’ve not yet discovered that it’s tainted and stinks to high heaven.

Earmarks often are the means of political pay-offs, favoritism, and good-ol'-boy backroom deals. Those with seniority are most adept at obtaining earmarks, thus adding clout to the notion that the only way South Dakota (and other states) can get their “fair share” of federal funding is by continuing to re-elect incumbents to deliver the goods.

In short, we are slipping even further down the slopes of good government. We become less a nation of laws and more a nation of men (with apologies to Rep. Herseth Sandlin, because she’s deservedly a part of the club.)

We may not be able to alter the ban on federal term limits, but this sad situation points to the need for it – and an obvious need to overhaul the budgeting process in Washington, D.C.