DON'T DRAIN THAT SWAMP

DON’T DRAIN THAT SWAMP -- Part 1 of 2

“Drain the swamp,” is a political reference going back to the Reagan Presidency; specifically linking the elimination of mosquitoes by swamp drainage to cleaning up the Washington bureaucracies. It is really a poor metaphor. The swamp is an eco system, and like all eco systems should be viewed with an eye to keeping it in balance rather than attempting to eliminate it.

When I grew up in the 1950s my parents bought a home not very far from the Northwest corner of a finger of the Dominguez Slough. A not insignificant area was covered by the slough, taking in parts of San Pedro, Lomita, Carson, Gardena, and a bit of Compton. I was familiar with the slough from where a finger began at Vermont and Artesia (now know as the Gardena Willows) and ran into what was then Victoria Park. I spent much of my childhood exploring this particular area of the swamp, and I learned that what keeps the eco system running smoothly is in knowing what causes imbalance to occur. Should the food chain be disrupted something that was insignificant can cause the imbalance to tip in the direction of disaster. So draining the swamp isn’t necessarily the best approach for saving the entire system.

Since our politicians are so fond of jingoism and creating sound bites that they believe will remain in the voter’s minds they don’t much care about accuracy; it’s much more about what is retained. Let’s look at whether we should drain the swamp, and what will be accomplished if we do. President Trump, during his Presidential campaign said that he would drain the swamp and it would put ethics back into the Washington playbook. I believe if he drains the swamp there will be nothing but a rotten sludge left…the government already has an unpleasant odor about it, no need to make it worse.

So then if we aren’t going to drain it, what should we do about the swamp? The answer seems to me to be quite simple; bring the eco system back into balance. Three issues come to mind when I think of rebalancing the Political Eco-system. The three issues are: 1) Term Limits, 2) Money, and 3) Accountability. The Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court, and the lack of any desire on the part of office holders to establish term limits for those elected to serve in either the House of Representatives or the Senate.

Term Limits

The recognition of the need for term limits dates back to the democracies and republics of antiquity. The Greeks of both ancient Athens and Sparta rotated their representative memberships annually. The ancient Romans featured a system of elected officeholders—tribunes of the plebs, aediles, quaestors, praetors, consuls and pro-consuls. They only served a single term of one year in any particular office. Re-election to the same office was forbidden for ten years. This was to prevent corruption, because authority was never held in any one person’s hands long enough for corrupt relationships to be sustained. Many of the founders of the United States were highly educated, and quite familiar with classical history, and rotation in office during antiquity. It is somewhat surprising that term limits were left out of the Constitution.

The men who drafted the U.S. Constitution never intended for politics to become a profession. They believed that Congress would convene at least once yearly and so they put into the Constitution the following: “The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.” Article I, Section 4, Clause 2. This was highly debated and was settled on for the Month of December due in part to the persuasive arguments of James Wilson and Oliver Ellsworth. They successfully argued that meeting in December would be more convenient for private business, because most Members would be involved with agriculture during the spring and summer. The Founding Fathers believed Congress persons would meet annually to do the nations business, and then go back to working at their professions. There was never any intention for government to be a full time position for any but the President, his cabinet, and the Supreme Court.

The lack of term limits for members of the House and Senate lead to what can only be described as unhealthy relationships with lobbyists and the Congress person’s peers, other office holders. The former leading to the potential for bribery, the latter to pork barrel legislation, as well as ignoring the need to scrutinize the financial impact of monies spent due to a tendency toward “you scratch my back…” you know the rest. An additional downside to having no term limits is that the incumbent office holder gains an unfair advantage at re-election time, due to name recognition and an established “track record” of accomplishments. It also potentially makes for a greedy and lazy electorate. If the incumbent has provided services that are beneficial to his or her specific “tribe” they will want to reward her with votes. And, since the incumbent is already a familiar face, there is little need to spend time on the other candidate’s bona fides. Finally, it is by now well known that running for public office is a very expensive proposition, and that, again the incumbent usually has the advantage. It is generally easier for the incumbent to raise the money needed to finance a campaign because they have had time in the halls of power to meet and develop friendly relations with the money people, and the lobbyists, who have a great desire to donate to the incumbent in order to curry favor with someone who has many “friends” in the system.

Perhaps the most important reason for initiating a system of term limits is that there is a great deal of talent being held back just by the nature of incumbents winning time after time; giving no other talented politico a chance. This is not going to be easy to achieve. Using our swamp analogy we’re about to ask Mr. Catfish to stick to scraps and such, and to leave Mr. Crayfish alone. Then we’re going to remind Mr. Crayfish of how we saved him from Mr. Catfish, and ask him not to eat the pollywogs so Mr. and Mrs. Frog can have a family. The sad thing is that even though they know it is good for them, neither the Critters in our swamp, nor the ones in the Washington Swamp will listen to reason. They will have to be dragged along, kicking and screaming, before doing what’s best for all of us....end Part 1