Yes

by Darrin A Yarbrough

Created on: April 07, 2009

The answer to this question may never be easily defined. That is, there may be very little direct evidence showing that this occurs for any specific incident. Furthermore, there are many circumstances in which it does not occur. The matter is further confused due to circumstances where it does occur but the result does not specifically indicate that it did not benefit the commonwealth.

Nevertheless, one merely needs to examine the historical context of the circumstance to discover the likelihood that this does occur and the results tend to demonstrate a benefit to those who have extended funds to specific individuals. In addition, if this trend was not evident, the desire to continue the practice would not be significant. I.e. if evidence tended to show that providing funds to congressmen did not buy votes, nobody would entertain the desire to engage in the practice. Therefore, the fact that it is the topic of debate is inherent evidence that it does occur and that the results tend to benefit those who engage in the practice. This does not translate to beneficial democratic rule by enacting legislation representative of the public opinion.

Instead, it suggests legislation designed to represent the interests of the financially well endowed remains prevalent. This is indicative of the premonition that the American experiment would eventually deteriorate to despotism as Benjamin Franklin predicted. Freedom of expression is a powerful form of government, to powerful to be taken lightly. The I, me, mine, mentality of those inclined to grab theirs now and worry about the consequences later is only paralleled by a majority that remains indifferent in the face of convenience, only to awaken after it is too late to change the direction of a train moving far too fast in the wrong direction. By the time the public awakens enough to stop the desire to engage in big business behind closed door behavior, the damage will have already been done with a result too far removed from the original intent to change.

The myopic desire for the mindless pursuit of profit without any interest in the consequence has gone so far in this country that it is no longer alarming or even surprising when such incidence occurs. Furthermore, the public embraces such behavior as an integral part of the American dream choosing to live vicariously in the belief that, "at least it happened for someone, even if that someone will never be them." This is hardly indicative of rule by the people for the people. In fact, this is entirely contra positive to this perception. It is more the equivalent to a Roman Diocletionism. The emperor Diocletian ran for office on the platform that there would only be two laws, one, and a man could only engage in the profession of his father, and two, a man could never leave the town of his birth. The public embraced Diocletian as the great liberator who chose to free the people. Only to discover after the fact, his rule was actually more oppressive than the original circumstance involving hundreds of laws.

This is America's circumstance; the public believes we are a government by the people for the people because that is what we are told. But that is not what occurs. Daily, actions and incidents designed to perpetuate rule by the rich and rule by the few continue to occur with the public following along with total indifference due to the belief this is part of the American way. This is not indicative of the intent and focus of the constitution or the declaration of independence, but rather some macabre twisted extension of those documents that leads to the suggestion that an I, me, mine, mindless pursuit for profit without consequence is an unspoken entitlement resulting from these documents. Unfortunately, this only tends to benefit the rich and powerful ad only translates to perpetuation of their objectives.

In a system that chooses to suggest that winning is attainable by anyone, the possibility that in order to win creates the necessity that someone must lose. In this case, choosing to sit back and accept continuing evidence of big business perpetuating big business so the rich can continue to get richer inevitably points to the commonwealth being the loser. That is, the common American is the loser, the one who has no interest in the acquisition and perpetuation of power. The one who just wants to live and let live believing in the doctrines published at this countries inception, not the twisted transmutation that those without scruples continue to perpetuate for the sake of self interest and the acquisition of power.

To summarize, payments to congressmen may or may not buy votes. Evidence would tend to indicate this practice does tend to buy votes and force the perspective of political leaders to focus on the interests of those who would desire to force politics to work in their favor. Therefore, in order to provide the public with leadership representative of a government by the people for the people, there is no forum for such activity to occur in a manner that beneficially serves this ideal. In fact, this practice runs counter to this objective selectively supporting the interests of those well endowed financially verses the interests destined for the common good. It remains imperative that the commonwealth selectively and actively opposes this at every given opportunity.

Learn more about this author, Darrin A Yarbrough.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.