Statesmen: NOT !

Notes of Concern…
…Jackson Blair


STATESMEN: NOT !

Watching the childish, maybe churlish, behavior of our leaders recently I wondered where all the “statesmen” of the past have gone. Here I refer to people with high ideals, pragmatic suggestions, a devotion to our democracy and our way of life, an appreciation for the needs of the people, and an understanding of the dangers in the world.

I am thinking of statesmen like Leverett Saltonstall, Henry Cabot Lodge, Hugh Scott, Henry “Scoop” Jackson, Robert Byrd, Gale McGee, Barbara Jordan, George Mitchell, Margaret Chase Smith, Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey… and so many others each of us could name.

There was a period not long ago when many men and women of great depth chose to leave their positions in Congress. These were people who were not old enough to consider retirement but had tired of the lack of civility in public life.

Then there were those statesmen who lost at the polls when running against unscrupulous opponents who unleashed smear campaigns and worked their dirty tricks against incumbents who would not stoop to that level.

In listening to Cokie Roberts eulogize Betty Ford, clearly they both remembered a time of cordiality between competing political philosophies. When Betty Ford asked that this time be remembered, I believe she did so because she, like so many of us, found nothing admirable in the current atmosphere in our capitol.

Ike and Lyndon Johnson and Sam Rayburn competed politically over legislation but still enjoyed one another’s company over bourbon and branch water or a game of cards. And they certainly admired each other and did not question that they all wanted what was best for America.

Richard Nixon saw talent in Democrat John Connally and appointed him to high office and considered him for the vice presidency. He was looking at talent and patriotism not political philosophy.

Eleanor Roosevelt befriended and helped people from all political persuasions and was admired by so many. She tried to see the best in people.

Robert Byrd, a powerful Democrat from West Virginia, never put his politics above his patriotism and zealously guarded the democracy while he lived.

Gerald Ford was possibly the only Republican that the Democrats would confirm as vice president when Spiro Agnew resigned. It was because of their great respect for him as a legislative leader.

Harry Truman never confused “the President” and “the presidency.” The day he left office he made certain there were the same number of pencils in his desk drawer as the day he had arrived.

As I write, the nation stands on the brink of an unprecedented financial crisis. Unprecedented in the fact that our ability to pay our debtors may be called into question. Not just our ability but our intentions.

The Founding Fathers would be mortified. Many of us are mortified.

And yet our problem is so very simple.

We spend more than we take in.

In order to continue to do this we either have to borrow more money (to continue spending) or raise taxes (to continue spending).

Why are our leaders so enamored of continuing to spend, to the point that they would like permission to borrow more or permission to raise taxes.

Why are they so disinterested in cutting spending, which is the course any family would have to take facing similar situations.

The answer, of course, is that the cutting they would choose to do would relate to programs for the poor and the elderly.

Would it be presumptuous of me to suggest they leave those programs alone and look at cutting foreign aid, cutting the outrageous pension and health plans they have voted themselves, cutting the cost of running unpopular and unnecessary wars and incursions into the lives of other nations, cutting back the salaries of people doing public work (and I am not referring here to just the support staffs), cutting back on the legions of people and materiel we send with the president and vice president and cabinet members every time they travel, how about vending machines instead of tony dining rooms in The White House, the Congress and in executive branch departments, perhaps fewer chauffeur driven limousines, fewer specially equipped and decorated private planes operating as luxury suites for people who travel on our behalf, maybe less parties and celebrations…in other words, lets start by tightening our belts everywhere that a normal household would in similar circumstances.

Who are these people who lead us? Have they lost all sense of propriety and proportion?

The Republic will survive if we never have another state dinner.

We will find friends in the world through our honesty and integrity and we need not try to buy friendships with foreign aid.

We can help other nations without traveling there, with a cast of thousands, to “talk”. Lets use teleconferencing more and international travel less.

I am aware that I run the risk of seeming unsophisticated and naive with these suggestions.

I welcome that risk if it encourages people to think of ways to save money without cutting social security on the elderly or not paying soldiers or asking the most needy to bear the burden of this debt.

We need some game changing moves in the District of Columbia and we are not going to get them without changing the cast of characters who have lost touch with their constituencies: the voters they pretend to represent.