« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Nancy Pelosi Is Right: Elections Shouldn’t Matter As Much As They do

In an ideal world, of course

Speaking at Tufts University on April 8th, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi had one of those marvelous moments of self-revelation in which a usually polished politician speaking casually and without a script among like-minded friends says what everyone is thinking–what everyone knows to be true–in this case what is considered an unquestionable “fact” by their audience. As you can see from the video, there was not a murmur when Pelosi circled around to her punch line that “elections should not matter as much as they do.” She went on to lament that the lack of “shared values” had lead to the unpleasantness of last Friday in Congress with all the shouting and staying up late and worries over who would get to keep their Blackberrys.

The thing is, Pelosi is right. Elections are burdensome things. They are expensive, intrusive and all too frequently unfair. Even when you win, the cycle of fundraising and campaigning distracts from the business at hand.

Elections are particularly burdensome when you lose. Then their inconvenience becomes glaringly apparent. New crops of politicos have to be trained over and over again to do the same tasks as their predecessors. Perfectly able, even accomplished lawmakers are routinely tossed out on their ears to make way for the ignorant and green. Majorities and minorities ebb and flow, leading to confusion over policy and priorities. Your treasured projects, nursed and nurtured in good faith, are threatened by the newcomers who do not share your values–who may in fact be devoid of values altogether and may nip those tender shoots in the bud.

Really when you look at it from Pelosi’s perspective, it all seems at best counter-intuitive and at worst barely civilized.

There has been some well-founded outrage at Pelosi’s apparent disdain for the democratic process stemming from post-2008 mid-term sour grapes. I suspect, however, that the root of the problem for those of us who find her remarks disturbing rather than self-evident is less the word “election” and more the word “shared”–as in the values Pelosi believes we must all have in common to achieve a utopia free from those burdensome elections.

Variants of “share” are popular in President Obama’s rhetoric as well, and I expect we will hear it several times from him this afternoon. I have noticed it as a curiously condescending word choice from a politician who is in my age group recalling what you would expect to hear from a parent or teacher, a disconnect he does not appear to see. It seems he understands the term differently. This new “sharing” is transitioning from being the free exercise of generosity–a learned trait for most humans–to being an obligatory act of subjugation to the state. You do not learn to share as a moral choice; you are told to do it. Should you attempt not to share what is yours–be it values or money–this government seems increasingly eager to put you back on the path of righteousness.

I find I am not comfortable with this obligatory sharing. I am one of those who do not consider pregnancy to be a punishment or gainful employment to be a prison. I am not eager to share my values with those who disagree on the first point or my money with those who differ on the second. As we consider the calls for us all to just get along, Nancy Pelosi’s off-hand comment serves as a useful reminder of what too much compromise–too much sharing–can get us.

As unfortunate as it may seem at times, elections must continue to be our burden to bear.

COMMENTS

  • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

    She never should have been given professional responsibility comensurate with being a Head Legislature in a modern nation.

  • Finrod

    When they win the election, then the election is a mandate for everything they want.

    When they lose the election, hey, elections shouldn’t matter so much.

  • beafrank

    As long as one side’s position is ‘Drill, Baby, drill’ and the other side is ‘Drill the Baby, drill’, the twain shall never meet nor compromise. Seriously, should they?

  • patriot63

    Elections Shouldn’t Matter As Much As They Do?
    Here’s what I’m hearing through the whole speech;
    (paraphrased of course)
    Please, everybody, don’t do that again. There’s no need to replace the existing legislators with new members of congress. We are experienced, know what we are doing and know what’s best for the country. Besides all that, elections aren’t cost effective and is far too troublesome to be bothered with ,especially now with a deficit so high. Everyone should just calm themselves , settle down and let us continue to handle things without the American people causing waves and getting involved in the government’s decision making process.
    That’s what i’m hearing.
    First of all, elections is the first step and beginning of any democratic process.
    I am so sorry to hear that it is considered a” burden”. It’s a cross i’m willing to bare, and i’m confident i’m not alone, inorder to insure the freedoms of the commonwealth of this country, instead of the special privelges being focused on for the few and the “proud”.
    Secondly, perhaps elections and the decision making process wouldn’t be so burdensome if the elected officials would simply focus on and reflect the values of the people who had elected them in the first place. There is no issue of ” sharing” the same values in that case, it is just a matter of doing one’s job. After all, they are there to “represent” the values of the American people, not to do what is right in their own eyes and until this message is clearly understood , I guess there,” is”, still some more spring cleaning to do regardless of the inconvience and cost of retraining legislators. The American People will eventually elect a group of legislators that has the integrity to represent the values of the “majority consensus” of their home state and only then could anyone reasonably expect the burden process of elections to lighten up.

  • johnt

    The inner fascist speaks, The O nods in agreement some where.

  • ss396

    We’re in the middle of a nightmare that was generated in a great degree by folks not taking electoral consequences seriously enough.

    On the pols’ side, we have a body to whom we have given legal power over our lives, enforcement authority to compel compliance, and have given them the public purse. And she thinks elections shouldn’t matter? Is she sane? The very fact that she is complaining about this tells us (a) that she is chaffing mightily under the restraints that elections impose, and (b) how very, very necessary they are particularly in her case.

    I dare not contemplate the ruin she would wreak were her current behavior not constrained by having to concern herself with her next election

    • 4suramcan

      What a silly question. No disrespect to you ss

  • Jim

    I am sure I am reading her words out of context and probably not taking it the same way as her, but on it’s face I agree with her statement. If we had a the government that was actually proscribed by the Constitution, if the goings on of the federal government were so removed from day-to-day life of the American people, then yes, elections would not matter as much as they do.

    Voting has turned into a largely defensive act by which one must pull the lever for the lesser of two evils on the slim chance that some small sliver of money, freedom, and prosperity can be kept away from the crooks in Washington. Contrasted with the Dems doing what they have always been doing (stealing and spending my money) and the House GOP reverting to true form (caving in and joining the Dems in stealing and spending my money), I would love to live in a world where the government was so small that elections would not matter as much as they do.

  • southernpatriots

    Dems have a mandate to rule by fiat when they win an election and when they lose it is is due to the ignorance of the voters, or that elections should not matter much.

    Our hope is that Demonrats (oops it is that dastardly typing again!) will continue to broadcast that elections should not mean much through the next election cycle. Conservatives need to win more seats in the House and, of course, in the Senate. Conservatives needed with testosterone!

  • popster

    for the right to vote? Now elections should not matter! It is time for the idiot to pull her head out of her where-ever it has been stuck.

  • pgrossjr

    You lost me at “Nancy Pelosi is right”.

  • Pingback: Theron Rosenthal

  • Pingback: Colin Dearmore