You are viewing this article in the AnnArbor.com archives. For the latest breaking news and updates in Ann Arbor and the surrounding area, see MLive.com/ann-arbor
Posted on Thu, Jul 19, 2012 : 5:59 a.m.

Modern politics could use new definition of 'victory'

By Robert Faber

Geriatric joys require a different set of benchmarks than does the happy road of younger dreamers.

After eight decades of make-believe inspired by the movies and further fed by sensual magazine and TV ads, it is increasingly easy to dump reality in favor of fantasy, but that doesn’t do much for shaping our future. The frivolous appeal of the faces and bodies of young models and the virility of the John Waynes of the West as they do their stuff on film are fun for a while — like watching such fanciful films as “Revenge of the Zombies." But, when we escape the illusions of budding maturity, we finally have to deal with the realities more likely to define our lives.

And that brings us to the fantasy world of politics.

Modern politics, after all, largely are a game and as do many games, they reward the big winners with fame and fortune beyond most imaginations.  

062412_constitution.jpg

The idea of a government designed to serve the needs of all its people and dedicated to serving those needs fairly, equitably and honorably was unique as well as inspiring. Unfortunately, time seems to have dimmed that spirit of democratic idealism.

Dana Rothstein | Dreamstime.com

 

In basketball, for example, LeBron James is at the top of the list with a salary in the many millions, and in tennis it’s Rafael Nadal earning double that figure — while each enjoys a notoriety worth even more in both income and ego.

What they do with their victory doesn’t really matter as long as it’s legal and reasonably respectable — and that sounds very much like the game of politics. It’s hard to find fault with that as long as the endgame simply is to win, but that’s the problem with the game of governance as it’s played today — the definition of victory.

From the first days of basketball in 1891 the object was to get the ball through the hoop, and in tennis it has always been to get the ball over the net and stay in bounds, but the game of politics no longer reflects its original purpose.

The point of American politics as declared in 1776, then detailed a decade later in the Constitution, was to achieve certain goals of governance — primarily to protect and to better serve its people. The dreams of a new nation, a new society, dedicated to the proposition “that all men are created equal ... (with) certain unalienable Rights” captured the imagination and enthusiasm of oppressed and impoverished people worldwide.

The idea of a government designed to serve the needs of all its people and dedicated to serving those needs fairly, equitably and honorably was unique as well as inspiring.

Unfortunately, time seems to have dimmed that spirit of democratic idealism. In the two-plus centuries that separate us from those historic moments, the ideals that inspired our Founders and helped define our nation quickly are fading.

It is in that loss that the values which created, and for so long sustained our nation, now falter. And in much the same way that the aging Michael Jordan can no longer play for the Bulls, or that an older McEnroe is no longer welcome at center court, the high spirits and youthful enthusiasm that designed and helped build our nation has grown more feeble with age. The noble goals of community service that had once set us apart from all the other nations of history are being replaced by a passion for electoral victory — at whatever cost.

Missing, for example, is the spirit of national purpose evident during World War II when drives to collect scrap iron and rubber were community affairs and appeals to buy U.S. War Bonds were wildly successful and when the mad rush of young men to enlist for military service both united us and defined us.

This really was one nation, only minimally divisible, whose goals and pursuit of those goals helped make us all family. Today’s unity, by contrast, is narrowly focused on the reduction of taxes.

The Constitution’s pledge to “promote the general Welfare” is being compromised by a legislative preference for the smaller, more influential stratum of our society. Concern for the humanitarian needs of those in distress is being subverted by accommodation for those more secure.

Programs designed for the nation’s most disadvantaged — Head Start for children, food assistance programs for the poor, housing for the homeless and so many other charitable services — are being targeted as the most convenient route to national debt reduction, in effect using funds pledged to the welfare of our most needy to satisfy the preferences of our most privileged.

Winners in athletic contests are fully deserving of their trophies and financial rewards, but in the game of politics our concentration must once again be on the larger principles which inspired our founders and sustained us for the succeeding centuries. By tradition, to the victor go the spoils, but in the game of politics, in addition to the fruits of success, should go the obligation — and the satisfaction — of serving the needs of the many.

And should that procedure be followed, the lives on both sides of that equation greatly will be enhanced.

Bob Faber has been a resident of Ann Arbor since 1954. He and his wife, Eunice, owned a fabric store and later a travel agency. He served a couple of terms on the Ann Arbor City Council. He may be reached at rgfaber@comcast.net.

Comments

Tru2Blu76

Sun, Jul 22, 2012 : 5:38 p.m.

Thanks Bob, for your interesting viewpoint on an important topic. And re: "By tradition, to the victor go the spoils, but in the game of politics, in addition to the fruits of success, should go the obligation — and the satisfaction — of serving the needs of the many." -- you've only omitted that the ideal of public service and obligation of elected officials has been (intentionally, I believe) down-graded to an anti-value. Political ideologies are used (as CBS commentator Bob Schiffer says) by party propagandists to do this, and to instill "rational self interest" as the substitute paradigm. I hoped you'd advocate some counter-measures beyond just heightening public awareness. I'll try to compensate with these two suggestions: (1) learn who are the chief campaign managers of every major candidate and you'll easily see what propaganda methods are used in that candidate's campaign. Hold the campaign managers accountable for using manipulative propaganda & demand they return to traditional moral obligation to America and Americans. (aka, "public service") (2) Realize: what you've described amounts to consciously replacing the original values of the Founding Fathers with "modernized" (liberal or conservative) extremist ideas and paradigms. The two most prominent examples today are: (a) replacing the willingness to pay for proper government services (like Social Security) through taxation with: "tax-less" (and unsupportable) "privatized" programs. (b) A dishonest switch of definitions: where "self interest" becomes an undefined, unbounded paradigm versus the former ( maligned) ideal of public interest. All the current "populism" consists of promoting ego and self-interest over the values of WILLING & affordable "self-sacrifice" for the general welfare.

outdoor6709

Fri, Jul 20, 2012 : 2:18 a.m.

so·cial·ism noun 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. 2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory. 3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles. I think we know what it means do you?

lumberg48108

Thu, Jul 19, 2012 : 6:37 p.m.

I guess I disagree with the authors views on what our gov is supposed to be "The idea of a government designed to serve the needs of all its people and dedicated to serving those needs fairly, equitably and honorably was unique as well as inspiring. " Serve the needs of the people? Many believe the Constitution was written – largely by James Madison – to define and to limit the federal government, and it was quickly amended by adding the Bill of Rights so as to be sure that natural rights would be respected by the government. basically - our governments sole purpose is to protect us from the government itself - not "take care of the needs of the people" ... that reads more like socialism

Ghost of Tom Joad

Thu, Jul 19, 2012 : 7:20 p.m.

http://oed.com/view/Entry/183741?redirectedFrom=socialism#eid Socialism: conservatives keeps using that word. I do not think that it means what you think it means.

B2Pilot

Thu, Jul 19, 2012 : 4:34 p.m.

Interesting article, might be more of a coincidence that these erosion of traits that made this country great is at the same rate of the decline in the number of Americans participating or practicing their religous beliefs. -Just sayin

Ghost of Tom Joad

Thu, Jul 19, 2012 : 4:57 p.m.

because the religiosity of the electorate matters so much in a SECULAR system of government.

Bogie

Thu, Jul 19, 2012 : 4:22 p.m.

Mr. Faber, Promoting the general welfare, is a great idea, when not abused. Unfortunately, this country has lost the war on poverty. Since the inception of welfare, and other poverty fighting government programs, we have seen the destruction of our inner cities, and a breakdown of the family. I work in the neighborhoods of Detroit and Toledo. Last week, I had a gentleman bragging to me, that he made more money than me between his disability check, and thriving marijuana business (while smoking a joint) Until we see a return back to the work ethic of previous generations; these programs will not work. I personally, would love to see a job requirement for any government assistance. It can be mowing lawns, or working at McDonalds. Make people work, and help them along the way. I think, until we see that, people (like me) will support politicians with limited government policies.

Jake C

Sat, Jul 21, 2012 : 4:14 a.m.

Take away that man's disability check, and he would probably still make more money than you with his thriving small business. Why do you want to punish America's entrepreneurial job creators?

Ghost of Tom Joad

Thu, Jul 19, 2012 : 4:57 p.m.

"making people work" if only it were that simplistic.

Lac Court Orilles

Thu, Jul 19, 2012 : 3:05 p.m.

Thank you Mr. Faber. This is an inspiring article. All Michigan Legislators, our Governor, Attorney General, and Supreme Court Justices should be required to read and discuss this article to determine new ways they can serve the needs of "all" people.

bobslowson

Thu, Jul 19, 2012 : 12:57 p.m.

Spot on Mr. Faber

Top Cat

Thu, Jul 19, 2012 : 12:20 p.m.

No Mr. Faber. When James Madison and the other authors of our Constitution placed the phrase "promote the general welfare" in the preamble of the Constitution, they were not endorsing, blessing or authorizing a corrupt entitlement state that is adding $1 billion + annually to our national debt. Try reading The Federalist Papers to see what they had in mind.

Tru2Blu76

Sun, Jul 22, 2012 : 5:51 p.m.

BTW: you can find 100 James Madison quotes on the Internet. Many of them seem to contradict each other. Rather than placing your own interpretation (conveniently) on them, you might try actually reading (a lot) more of what Madison wrote. If you do (and assuming you have the intellectual honesty and capacity): you soon learn that Madison EVOLVED his views & statements as time passed and circumstances changed. Many must have noticed: your posts show a pattern of ideological sameness and rigidity. Always the same (tired) right-wing talking points - where did YOU BORROW all this crap from?

Tru2Blu76

Sun, Jul 22, 2012 : 5:42 p.m.

False (all or nothing- or the opposite) arguments aren't exactly enhancing people's opinion of your viewpoint. Maybe it's time to re-evaluate (suggestion: start with breaking down the ideology you've chosen to voluntarily defend).

Jake C

Sat, Jul 21, 2012 : 4:13 a.m.

"adding $1 billion + annually to our national debt" I don't think it was your intent to only write "billion" instead of "trillion" there, but you were unintentionally accurate. Programs like Welfare and Food Stamps and Head Start and other programs for the disadvantaged do add to the national debt, but at a minuscule level compared to the big 4: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Defense. Until politicians are forced to stop the silly & dangerous game of modern politics and focus on actually solving the nation's problems realistically, they're just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. That includes actually considering things like making fundamental changes to how the nation runs Medicare, its Military, and raising taxes.

Ghost of Tom Joad

Thu, Jul 19, 2012 : 3:13 p.m.

I also find it interesting that you chose the Federalist Papers as an example to defend your usual anti-government perspective. It was these papers that argued for a stronger central government.

Ghost of Tom Joad

Thu, Jul 19, 2012 : 3:11 p.m.

You mean Federalist Paper 10 - and the fear of the tyranny of the majority?