We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
These words begin the preamble of the Declaration of Independence, in which 237 years ago this day, the thirteen American colonies announced that they considered themselves states independent of Britain. This long experiment with democracy has had its ups and downs. The downs have always coincided with efforts to limit the rights of members of society. The ups have always coincided with the triumph of these rights over attempts to limit, stifle, or deny them.
As has been said, the United States is a great nation. Definitely not as great as we sometimes think we are, but still a great nation. Let us use this Independence Day as an opportunity to appreciate the many positive attributes of our democracy and to rededicate ourselves to the self-evident truth that all men are created equal and that we are only equal when our unalienable rights are available to all.
The thought occurred to me the other day that maybe the problem of the never-ending campaign, in which it seems America has no sooner finished one election season than another begins, would be to change the length of terms to which politicians are elected.
Currently, the President is elected to a four-year term with a maximum of two terms. Senators are elected for six-year terms, with approximately a third of the Senators up for election every two years. Representatives are elected for two-year terms with the entire House of Representatives up for election at the same time.
What, then, if we changed the President to a single, six-year term with no chance for re-election? Senators could remain a six-year term, but modify it so half the body changes every three years. Representatives could be increased to three-year terms.
It would seem that the upshot would be a bit more time between election seasons, allowing for more opportunity to govern. Especially for the President, since he or she could not be re-elected, there would be more freedom to govern based on one’s positions rather than the poll results.
What do you think? Would there be any pros or cons to this plan?
Trying to be an active participant in our American democracy, I subscribe to newsletter updates from my Senators and Congressional Representative. All three of them are very conservative, more so than I am on most issues, so their newsletters often provide an opportunity for me to write them with an opposing viewpoint.
I do have to give credit to Representative Jerry Moran, though, who has started posting video responses to questions from his constituents. At least he gives clear statements about his position on issues. Representative Moran recently posted the above video, ostensibly in response to a question from a constituent, “What do we need to do to get President Obama to let us drill for oil and natural gas here in the U.S.? It would certainly decrease our dependence on foreign oil.”
I shared my thoughts with Representative Moran through the following email:
Dear Representative Moran:
Just finished watching your video about drilling for oil. I appreciate you providing this kind of clarity on your positions; please continue doing so. Regarding your answer, though, I have two concerns as a constituent and pragmatic American:
First, you describe this as a “battle we must win” against the Environmental Protection Agency and the Obama administration. I disagree that it is a “battle”. The EPA continues to play an important role in protecting our fresh air, our clean water, and our natural environment. Perhaps you noticed the Gulf of Mexico oil spill last year? Perhaps you have read the considerable scientific concern about fracking? Fossil fuels are dirty forms of energy and their extraction comes with costs to our environment. The EPA plays an important role in us considering the bigger-picture and longer-term costs, not just reacting to the price of gas at the pump.
My second concern is that you seem to be giving short shrift to non-fossil forms of energy. Sure, you mention them twice in your video but both mentions seem to be an afterthought. Any way you cut it, fossil fuels are a finite resource. We can’t drill, mine, or frack our way to national security and energy independence. We need to be encouraging more investment and research in renewable energies because that is ultimately going to be a necessity in the future. China is already surpassing us in green energy technologies. Surely you want the US to remain competitive?
More drilling off the coasts or up in Alaska, more digging up of the northern plains, more fracking of the rocks beneath Pennsylvania and Ohio – all of these are very short-term, costly, and dirty fixes to our problems. It is time for a smarter, longer-term, more sustainable approach to our energy needs.
I’m curious, what are your thoughts about the U.S. energy policy? What should we be doing differently in order to ensure energy security?
christao408 