Fear and Loathing

I'm in a quandary about which way to vote. My mind is made up about the presidential candidates, so at least that's one race about which I can quit obsessing. Every other race, however, has me flummoxed.

Like a good many other Americans, I imagine, I'm one of those voters who doesn't like to be labeled. I'm not a Democrat. I'm not a Republican. I would call myself an independent, but that term has become associated with party politics, as well. I guess I fall somewhere within the "little-el libertarian" spectrum, because some of my views are socially liberal and others are fiscally conservative. I am neither far right nor far left, at least the majority of the time, and I believe the Constitution of the United States is a living, breathing document and about the best government guideline going (or it would be, if people would stop trying to subvert it).

Here's my problem, though: I am sick to death of "politics as usual." I'm fed up with the people's representatives in Washington and Austin. Exactly which people are they representing, other than themselves? That question stood out in stark relief against the background noise generated by the recent debate over the Wall Street bailout. When all was said and done, Congress had approved $850 billion dollars in so-called relief for the troubled American economic system — despite what appeared to be overwhelming opposition to the plan from rank-and-file Americans. If that's what congresscritters call representing their constituents, someone's definition of "representing" needs modification.

Adding insult to injury, $150 billion of the bailout funds was devoted to "earmarks" (read "pork"). Can't anything be done in Washington without someone's pet project sneaking onto the bill?

I'm also beyond annoyed that big Wall Street players who were bailed out before the bailout — "for the good of the American economy" (*snort*) — have continued the Good Time Charlie ways that got them in trouble in the first place. AIG is a glaring example: Congress appropriated $80 billion in funds to prop up the insurance giant, AIG continued engaging in ridiculous excesses, Congress publicly lambasted the company and its executives ... and then handed it another $39 billion because the $80 billion wasn't enough to allow AIG to maintain itself in the overblown, conspicuously consumptive style to which it had become accustomed.

Am I the only one who was incensed by that?

Now the U.S. Treasury is planning to use at least part of the $850 billion bailout money to ... well, bail out homeowners who got themselves in over their heads with mortgages they probably couldn't afford when they applied for them. Yes, some people are in danger of losing their homes, and some of those people probably weren't entirely capable of understanding the terms of their loans. In those cases, the issuing banks should be drawn and quartered, because their actions were at best irresponsible and greedy and at worst criminally fraudulent and abusive. Borrowers who had the wool pulled over their eyes by salivating moneylenders may deserve some kind of relief. The stupid ones, however — the ones who accepted mortgages they strongly suspected they couldn't afford — deserve neither relief nor sympathy. They certainly don't deserve the largesse of other taxpayers who were neither greedy enough, shortsighted enough nor idiotic enough to place themselves in the same financial sinkhole. Yet that's exactly the position in which Congress has placed the people it purports to represent, despite our not wanting to be there.

So here's my thought: If the current crop of congresscritters is determined to ignore the will of their constituents, shouldn't the constituents tell them their (dis)service no longer is needed? Shouldn't we all band together and vote the bums out? If every voter would vote for the political challenger over the incumbent in races that offer a choice, we could do exactly that.

That's a nice thought, but it's probably not going to happen. Even if there were some way to herd cats, undoubtedly some of the cats would decide at the last minute that the evil they don't know is much scarier than the evil with which they're already familiar. In addition, some cats, like lemmings, will follow the leader over a cliff rather than vote for someone in "that other" political party.

And there's my problem in a nutshell. I'm willing to vote against every incumbent on the ballot in November, despite considering myself an informed voter who makes her choices based on what I like to think is an educated reading of each candidate's platform, not his or her party affiliation. The move would be risky, though, because I'd have to hope neither ultra-right religious nuts nor ultra-left spendthrifts gained control of my country — and one or the other could, depending upon how everyone else votes. The cautious side of me and the very, very angry side of me are at war over the issue right now.

Both sides, however, are intrigued by the possibility that if every voter vowed to throw the bums out, the result would send a very clear message to Congress that We the People are tired of being ignored, talked down to and told we have no clue what's best for us individually or en masse.

Thomas Jefferson probably would approve. It was he who said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

And manure is one thing of which there is no shortage in Washington.