Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Bipartisan Disgust

George Nethercutt
Former U.S. Congressman George Nethercutt
Former U.S. Congressman George Nethercutt
Former U.S. Congressman George Nethercutt

Recent polls show that voter confidence in government is at a low point, and that spells election danger for congressional incumbents. It’s also not good for the rest of us.

A March 29-April 1 CBS News poll showed that 56 percent of adults believe congressional debates on matters of national importance are less civil than they were 10 years ago. A March 19-21 CNN/Opinion Research poll found that 51 percent of those polled believe Republicans are more unethical than Democrats in Congress (but only by 2 percent). But with a 3 percent margin of error, it’s safe to conclude that half of all Americans consider both Democrats and Republicans to be equally unethical. A May 2 Rasmussen poll gives the edge to Republicans in the generic ballot by seven points; that is, 44 percent of likely U.S. voters would vote Republican, compared to 37 percent for Democrats. As for independent voters, 43 percent prefer Republican candidates compared to 27 percent who like Democrats.

It’s clear that voters can change their minds as frequently as Barack Obama can propose new government takeovers, but the disturbing trend in all political polling is that most Americans are disgusted with the state of government and quality of elected officials who make decisions for us in Washington, D.C. Sadly, voters are rightly skeptical of their motives, ethics and integrity. To date, 17 Democrats and 20 Republicans have called it quits in the House, a disturbing trend likely to continue, but it’s symptomatic of the sour atmosphere on Capitol Hill and throughout the nation.

Politics has always been a contact sport, and public policy issues usually produce a divided electorate and provoke sharp rhetoric. Ben Franklin, writing in 1771, found “libeling and personal abuse” disgraceful to our country. Thomas Paine accused George Washington, thought by most to be a paragon of virtue, of “treachery” and “pusillanimity.” Harper’s magazine labeled Abraham Lincoln a “Filthy story teller, despot, liar, thief, braggart and buffoon,” among other negative monikers.

Despite the hard rhetoric of the past, the time-honored practices of respectable discourse, compromise and accommodation with opponents over tough issues, and the ultimate resolution of political and philosophical differences for the public good, have given way to the abuses of power that now dominate the halls of government. And that’s upsetting to the nation. Our country is in serious debt, government is now more king-sized than ever, and elected officials seem tone deaf to public sentiment. Under the circumstances, the mantra, “But we won the election” chanted by congressional Democrats and the president misses the mark.

It’s tempting to wonder why national politics has become so ugly that increasing numbers of voters are disgusted with all national leaders, abandoning the trust they once had in what President Obama promised in his inaugural address as a “new era of responsibility.” In fact, Mr. Obama’s tendency to believe the myths of omnipotence that surrounded his historic election shows that he has lost the moral equanimity all presidents should possess — confidence without arrogance. Schooled in Chicago-style politics, Obama was arguably the least prepared the presidency has seen — never a governor, usually a back-bench state official, a short-term U.S. Senator, rarely willing to boldly lead on anything significant, but always with an eye to the presidency. His style and policies may be the reason the public’s opinion of government has worsened since the dawn of his presidency.

In retrospect, Mr. Obama entered the presidency with a vast agenda, but he mistakenly ceded the one-sided health care debate to the liberal leaders of Congress and had to break arms to eke out passage in the face of a 59 percent public disapproval for the program. That 59 percent will remember the issue in November. He naively thought his aura of invincibility might rub off on the Iranians, the Russians and the Chinese; that trio has failed, so far, to bow down to U.S. priorities — and likely won’t. And the economy, naturally cyclical, hasn’t come close to the president’s predictions for recovery.

So we’re left now with a deeply divided electorate, uncertain about the future, with too many Americans still unemployed. And voters seem poised to throw incumbents out in large numbers, and give voice to their frustrations. Unfortunately, it signals our collective disdain for political leaders in a political system that should be inspiring confidence in our future as a nation — and as a people.

There have always been shifts in Americans’ political moods, but the downward pressure now being felt by taxpayers could lead to a public awakening in November that demands a fundamental change in national direction. And it’s why public participation in 2010 is so vital to a robust democracy. This promises to be the election year in which fiscal restraint, a halt in the expansion of government and its control over American lives, protection of national borders and proper attention to private-sector, job-creating policies rule the day.

The public also seems hungry for statesmen, not ideologues on the far left or far right, but simply honorable, intelligent people who are called to public life to serve others and have the maturity to make wise decisions for the majority of Americans, and in the process, humbly restore our confidence in their leadership of our great nation. Just because politicians win elections doesn’t mean they can ignore the people they serve.

November’s election will chart the nation’s course.

George Nethercutt represented the 5th District of Washington as a Republican in Congress between 1995-2005. His column appears in The Inlander once a month.

Also in Commentary

New Frontiers

While the Old West still feeds the mythology of the region, the New West commands a new paradigm

Michael Dax |
Wednesday, May 22,2013

The Sports Mafia

Publisher's Note

Ted S. McGregor Jr. |
Wednesday, May 22,2013

The English Way

Justice Scalia finds his rationale for an expansive Second Amendment in Common Law — so why does Great Britain have such strict gun control?

Robert Herold |
Wednesday, May 15,2013

What We Pay For

Publisher's Note

Ted S. McGregor Jr. |
Wednesday, May 15,2013

Keeping America

Announcing a new local effort to inspire today’s students to learn where their country came from

George Nethercutt |
Tuesday, May 7,2013

Also By George Nethercutt

Familiar Ground

George Nethercutt |
Wednesday, April 13,2011

Identity Crisis

We must change the way world thinks about the United States.

George Nethercutt |
Wednesday, November 9,2011
Commentary

Civics Lessons

Why studying American history is essential to being a good citizen

George Nethercutt |
Wednesday, March 31,2010

Election Reflections

The Newt we see on the campaign trail is the same old Newt I used to work with.

George Nethercutt |
Wednesday, February 8,2012
Commentary

Misunderstood?

Voters are looking to put America on the right track.

George Nethercutt |
Wednesday, September 8,2010


This is a great reason why I wish George Nethercutt would "unretire". Kathy McMorris tries hard, but she does not represent us well. Although she has had success with John Boehner, and she is "climbing the ranks"...the question remains...do we really want another typical politician ? Nethercutt rightly points out that the public is tired of the same old same old. McMorris is the lifelong politician. She is not a "statesman" by any stretch of the imagination.




-




We need somebody to run against McMorris. Somebody with integrity...Don Barbieri (d) or Nethercutt (r)...both guys are self made and not suckups to the national DC machine. We need someone who cares about Spokane and Eastern Washington. Steve Corker would be a great member of congress (d). Another impressive man would be Ozzie Knezovich...but he loves his job as Sheriff. The public craves leaders. NOT politicians. Men like Mark Richard. Women like Amber Waldref. Calm and logical people.




-




If I have to, I will run just so that McMorris is kept honest. If that is the case, you can surely bet that Kathy will have a tough in the debates. But the Spokesman Review will save her sycophantic self by crucifying me for the 7th time. The Cowles Media owns McMorris, and they choose who to assassinate via media manipulation. Remember when they called our mayor a civic terrorist ? Tom Grant left town. Chjris Anderson left town. WELL...Betsy Cowles and Joe Shogan made false claims against me and we are in court for almost 500 days now.




Kathy McMorris represents old school politics (lies). We need someone fresh (hopefully NOT me).




Mark Richard




Steve Corke




For goodness sake...someone run against our current ficus plant.




David Elton, South Hill "Gadfly" (Thanks to Irv Broughton...genius)

May 13, 2010 | Reply to this comment

 

You bet voter confidence is at a low point. When I write in to Cathy MR´s office to tell her why she isn´t representing my interests, she sends back a generic form letter, full of rhetoric and fluff and empty accusations, much like this column.




"It’s clear that voters can change their minds as frequently as Barack Obama can propose new government takeovers"? Really? I thought this column was supposed to laud "statesman-like" behavior, not catchy Republican talking points that grossly oversimplify complicated subjects, like what it takes to keep our entire national economy from completely imploading.




"Government is now more king-sized than ever." Really? Because I see wholesale cuts at the local, state AND national level. Elimination of entire programs, layoffs of staff, cutbacks in hours - just the kind of wholesale blood letting that should make anti-government Republicans rejoice.




Just what exaclty is Mr. Nethercutt trying to insinuate with this supposed Democratic "mantra"? I´ve never heard any Democrat take such a stance - talk about being tone deaf to public sentiment.




This column makes me sick. It has gone from bad to worse in just its second publication. George takes some obvious societal malady that everyone can agree upon, and then blames his opposition for causing or exacerbating it. This is the hallmark tactic of the Republican party. 




Now I get that the Inlander wanted someone to come in and provide some "balanced" commentary - but this is so blatantly partisan it makes the title of the article ironic. There have been environmental advocates and proponents of education and the like writing in the Inlander commentary section before, but never did the left have a party apologist anywhere near comparable to likes of George Nethercutt.




This is a gross overcorrection in the search for more "balanced" reporting that the people of Eastern Washington can relate to. It is unfortunate to see the Inlander mainstreaming its content in conjunction with the downsizing of the Spokesman. Over the years this is going to turn into an irresistable invitation for someone to open up a REAL alternative weekly for the Inland Northwest. 




 

May 18, 2010 | Reply to this comment

 

Thank you Spovangelist, for writing exactly what I was thinking. I wish I could say the following as well as you have said it.





Nethercutt blames Obama for the publics poor opinion of Congress when that number dropped the most during the Bush Admin. He doesn´t seem to understand that we, the people, want to see our congressmen actually standing up to big corporations/banks who try to control our lives. We want the US to stop policing the world and start making sure big business uses "best" safety standards and treats the working class with respect. Nethercutt doesn´t offer any real sollutions to our lack of faith in Congress. May 18, 2010

 

Dear Mr. Nethercutt,




What a hypocrite!  Obviously you contributed to this distrust of Government since you were a member of Congress. President Obama has been President of just over a year. It takes a while to solve our country´s problems that have been developing over the years, mainly, I might add, during the last 8 years of a Republican administration. At least Obama´s motive is to do what helps the majority of the American people and not just special interest groups and the wealthy.

May 18, 2010 | Reply to this comment

 

George Nethercutt is a partisan hack..........what is the Inlander thinking? Surely they could have come up with conservative who has ideas not taken right out of the Luntz playbook.  This neck of the wood is crawling with conservatives.......they has to be at least a few honest ones left.


Mr. "term limits" Nethercutt lied about that, lost a Senate bid, bombed as a DC consultant and now wants to tell us what is wrong with politics today.......I don´t think so



May 18, 2010 | Reply to this comment

 

This gives me a chance to edit someone else´s writing, if not think and write. Maibie is my name, words are my game. It´s not a contact sport; I wouldn´t changea thing in this article but two words: "dawn", and "humbly", in two different sentences, as follows:

"His style and policies may be the reason the public’s opinion of government has worsened since the dawn of his presidency."

Since I´ve heard and read the word "dawn" in captions or sentences that suggest a quite long period of time (the dawn of man, the dawn of the Age of Reason, etcetera) the word actually frightened me and recalled a short-short essay I wrote one morning some weeks since, in the throes of a deep depression, about the onset of nuclear war and the decade-long reign of a power-hungry dictator. So, I would have simply said "...since his presidency began."

"The public also seems hungry for statesmen, not ideologues on the far left or far right, but simply honorable, intelligent people who are called to public life to serve others and have the maturity to make wise decisions for the majority of Americans, and in the process, humbly restore our confidence in their leadership of our great nation."

Given what we have read and heard about the cynicism of many people about politics and politicians (in young people particularly), I doubt the reader would believe that any politician is actually humble. Likewise, the very definition of "humble" includes the lack of the quality of assertiveness (very necessary in any person who aspires to leadership in business or politics). I would have shied away from the word "humbly", and written instead "...and in the process, and with humility, restore our confidence in their leadership of our great nation." (The definition of "humility" is "freedom from pride or arrogance", a quality (and word) much more easily accepted as attributable to someone who seeks to represent or lead large numbers of people. Sep 29, 2011 | Reply to this comment

 

 
 
Close
Close
Close