On 19 May, I sent my 2nd Congressional District Congresswoman Yvette Herrell an email asking her how she voted on the baby food bill the previous day; if she voted against it, to explain her reasons for doing so; and to explain why so many Republicans voted against it. I indicated my concern: my granddaughter has special dietary needs which are imperiled by the disruption of supply.
If I say so myself, there is nothing discourteous or threatening in these questions to my representative about how she voted and what explains her and her party’s vote. But her non-response says that my request was troublesome to her. And I am talking about baby food, not abortion, guns, or immigration. Of course, Rep. Herrell is not a stupid woman; she knows a question comes next: since you revere life so very much that you define it from the moment of conception, why does life not get revered after the moment of breach, when the newborn needs appropriate and adequate nutrition (and much else).
A more general question is why more representatives are not responsive and not representative. Others tell me that their letters, emails, or messages get no responses. According to polls, majorities—in some cases, high-percentage majorities—of Americans support abortion is some form, want some gun control—among others, background checks, age limits for purchases, bans on assault weapons and ammunition—and favor many social programs. Yet Congress does not enact legislation reflecting the desires of most citizens. Obviously, whatever Congressional representatives in the House or Senate say, most votes are bought and paid for by the campaign coffers of business interests with a cadre of lobbyists or by personal fortunes of multi-millionaires or billionaires with inflated egos to inflate further. Representatives will continue to vote for the rich to get richer—and make bigger campaign contributions to ensure their legislated wealth to get still richer—and the poor to get poorer (and, with abortion outlawed, more children).
Do not forget the Supreme Court, which is doing its oath-breaking best to turn this country into a Catholic-Evangelical Christian theocracy with plutocratic oligarchs to pay for maintaining Congressional support. But consider whether the people for whom you can vote, like Yvette Herrell or Gabe Vasquez, have any intention of representing you or the public interest.
How do Ms. Herrell and her Republican colleagues think their constituents will react? Obviously, many Americans will continue (struggle?) to believe and act as if they really do have a say in government. They will read the anodyne exhortations of The League of Woman Voters (it took a month to express dismay over the fatal shooting of Sra. Baca—how powerful, not), write letters to the editor, comment on Facebook or Twitter, and vote. Others will turn away from the tawdry spectacle of pseudo-democratic displays, let their voter registration lapse, and, if they do not ignore politics altogether, subside into an embittered, cynical apathy (cynicism and apathy already in over-supply).
Of course, still others, a small band of violent extremists, will act in subversive rebellion and get a lot of media attention. Many of their acts will be the usual ones of political terrorism: ambushes of police officers, attacks on police stations, assaults on government buildings, and assassinations of elected officials. A few might be very, very ugly, like the kidnapping of their children and grandchildren (brutal message: a finger a day and an accompanying tape of a mother’s and her child’s screams). Others will be unusual in their sophistication: biological attacks on food-processing or -storage facilities or cyberattacks shutting down hospitals, water treatment facilities, power plants, and transportation systems. Scary it would be if malware installed in airport control tower computers directed planes to land at the same time on the same runways at major airports in a single region (not land: run out of fuel and still crash). For all the pain and havoc which they can cause, extremists will prompt only strong reaction—repression, not reform or revolution. When they have been dispatched, the rest of us will go back to some level of manageable discontent.
I am luckier than most. I am at an age at which ageing gracefully is about all that I can hope to manage. I can live with my family—my pack, really—of dogs and cats; I do not need a woman any more than a fish needs a bicycle. I can visit my children and grandchildren. I can read books and watch movies as fancy dictates. I can (and shall) continue to write blogs protesting the ills of governments and everything else which is ill. I shall continue to hope that the generations after mine will rise to the challenges.
Still, I have little idea about how to accomplish the sweeping reforms necessary to preserve American democracy. The forces which can corrupt democracy have already corrupted democracy and locked out reform. Money is speech, don’t you know? But as long as some votes in some places can make some difference, citizens should make sure that they vote for someone who will represent their interests. Which means replace Yvette Harrell, who serves the rich, and reject Gabe Vasquez, who wants to serve himself. For my Congressional district representative, I am going to cast a write-in vote for Jed Bartlet.
No comments:
Post a Comment