The Problem of Incumbency

What does it mean to be a Public Servant? The dictionary defines Public as:

of, pertaining to, or affecting a population or a community as a whole; done, made, acting, etc., for the community as a whole; open to all persons; of, pertaining to, or being in the service of a community or nation; pertaining or devoted to the welfare or well-being of the community;

–noun the people constituting a community, state, or nation; a particular group of people with a common interest, aim;

The dictionary defines Servant as:

–noun a person employed by another, esp. to perform domestic duties; a person in the service of another; a person employed by the government.

To be a true Public Servant one would purport to work for a group as a whole. Our legislative members contend that they are Public Servants who serve at and for the will of the people they serve. Why is it then that these so called Public Servants seem to serve only those who are associated with their political party or special interest? The reason is simple! As Senator Chris Dodd admitted “This is not a fraternity, it’s a business…and that’s the way it should be–the business of governing”[1]

Congressional service does not conform to the definition of Public Servants when viewed from the perspective of Sen. Dodd [a business]. He is correct in his summation in that politicians view their service as a business and the purpose of a business is to; “improve the long term well being of customers whilst providing the owners of a business with a good return for money, time, energy, ideas and imagination invested in a business.”[2] Successful business people spend much of their time and energy working on their profit model [campaign finance], finding new or better ways to fulfill that need or expanding on what needs they can fill, after all; a business with no customers isn't a business, a business with unhappy customers is a bad business and doesn't deserve to survive, a business that is losing money and consuming cash[deficit spending] is a bad business and won't be around for long, and a business that makes a pitiful return to the business owner[remember deficit spending] is a problem business and the owners need to take action to fix the problem.

So with these thoughts, why does the business of government survive? Simple–the very essence of a business is about the customers and the owners, but in the case of the government, the customers and the owners are one-in-the-same and therefore cannot qualify as a business at all. With the profit element removed and those running the business satisfying personal needs why do the owners continue to hire them? Because the operators [congress] have learned that if you can attract a majority of the customers [voters] – successes will follow; remember a business with unhappy customers is a bad business and doesn't deserve to survive. Phil Valentine The Conservative’s Handbook [3] identified it well when he talks about the Haves and Have Nots. If you create a majority of happy have not’s then your personal value goes up and so too does your electability. The customers are the source of all the revenue [taxes] and have to be the focus of the business [social services]. George Bernard Shaw once said that “A government with the policy to rob Peter to pay Paul can be assured of the support of Paul.”

So on to Sen. Dodd’s assertion that this is a business – it is time for the owners to fire those who have festered in the business far too long for personal benefit rather that the benefit of the public [remember that public servant diatribe?]. Candidates for public office often promise us the world only to deliver a shovel of dirt. Tell people what they want to hear- the people eventually fall for the rhetoric [change we can believe in] only to become dissatisfied later. Looking at the trends in Congressional job approval ratings [see the Gallup Poll] it is easy to see that the vast majority of the time people are dissatisfied. Why then do they continue to vote in the same incumbents year-after-year only to be surprised that the change they were promised never comes to fruition?

You see it really does not matter who controls congress as an indicator of public approval. The biggest spike in congressional approval in 2002 was statistically equal among both major parties and was at a time when Americans were joined together to oppose the evil doers in the world who had attacked our country. Now that the war has lingered on, Americans have gained focused on the material issues that are the real forces attacking this country – these are domestic issues that our elected officials continue to falter upon. If you were a business owner [and you are as determined by the Dodd business system] would you continue to allow an individual or entity [in this case Congress] to continue to run your business with such dismal statistics on job approval? Then why are the same people [incumbents] continually placed in a position to continue with such poor performance or worse yet promoted, i.e. presidency?

It is time for the owner/customer [we the people] to take control of this business [government] and only allow those who intend to serve the will of the owners and customers the ability to be public servants. This can only be done through anti-incumbency. Like the presidency in 1951 – congress needs to be exposed to term limits as a control to their loyalty. Today they only serve those who place the largest donation into their campaign coffers. Politics has become a family affair and a career not a public service.

[1]Hosenball, M., Smalley, S. and Thomas, E. (June 8, 2009). Like Father, Like Son. Newsweek
[2] Business Coaching. (07 April 2009). What Is The Purpose Of A Business?
[3] Valentine, P. (2008). The Conservative’s Handbook. Nashville: Cumberland House