House
Majority Leader Eric Cantor, President Barack Obama
and
House Speaker John Boehner: Is it time for a law called
'No
Politician Left Behind'?
News, Switzerland
Notion: 'Pay Politicians
Based on Performance'
"Creating
performance standards for lawmakers is an insult to the institution of Congress
… we have spent millions of dollars, some of it out of our own pockets, to get
to Washington … We did not come here to be treated like teachers!"
-- Comment of Satirical
House Speaker John Boehner
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell: Is it time that a law is passed rewarding or punishing he and his colleagues based on their performance in office? The idea, suggested by American comedian Andy Borowitz, sounds appealing. But who would pass it?
In one of the very amusing
articles on his Web site The
Borowitz Report, American comedian Andy Borowitz has conjured up the
satirical vision of a law under which representatives of the people would only be
compensated on the basis of performance.
The fictitious reactions of
leading politicians to this bill are at the center of the satire: “If passed,
this law would be tantamount to the establishment of 'Work Panels' which would
determine whether individual Congressmen are accomplishing anything …. I for
one would be in deep trouble,” Says Republican Eric Cantor in Borowitz’s
article. And John Boehner, currently President Obama’s leading opponent, is
made to say that, “creating performance standards for lawmakers was an “insult
to the institution of Congress … we have spent millions of dollars, some of it
out of our own pockets, to get to Washington … We did not come here to be
treated like teachers!”
The sad thing is that such an
idea would be met with exactly this reaction, since politics are still
conducted as a kind of art, which consists primarily of obscuring the difference
between fine words and suboptimal levels of reality, while being pressed to
please voters in time for the next election. And in a democracy, those who
excel at this juggling act apparently earn the most votes.
Posted
by WORLDMEETS.US
Unfortunately, it can also be
quite useful to provide the opposite of a good performance in order to encourage
the childish illusions of voters and actively prevent good performance from
others. Take climate change, for example, which politicians use primarily as an
ideological weapon rather than treating it as an everyday problem.
The political left spread the
idea that an apocalyptic future based on the most extreme researcher-designed
scenarios was imminent. The political right, on the other hand, portrayed the
whole issue as a conspiracy of conceited researchers. The left demanded
immediate, severe limits on transportation, consumption and lifestyle in
general; while the right wanted budget cuts for pesky researchers to silence
them and their “propaganda.” Most of the energy expended was used to spread
ideological points of view, with the opposing parties making it difficult for anyone
to keep from being automatically drawn into the conflict.
Politicians are bolstered by
their followers, who making their vociferous presence felt in town halls and
forums, and by the endless repetition of one-sided, frequently incorrect
arguments (and with intentional disregard of new information) that give the
impression that reality should simply adjust itself to the opinions of
politicians, rather than politicians with reality.
So on every conceivable level,
what is the result of these political “shouting matches”?: Opinions trump
facts, obstructionism wins out over productivity, and confrontation prevents
cooperation.
Of course, controversy is
important on the road to democratic opinion finding. But when politicians refuse
to accept certain facts based on purely ideological grounds (certain banking
transactions are harmful to the world economy, fraud is a problem for social
welfare programs, CO2 contributes to global warming, sexual orientation is not
a matter of choice, etc.), it becomes impossible to find solutions to factual
issues and problems.
The inhibition toward good performance
has achieved such primacy in politics that “tough characters” think it's enough
to be tough on others rather than taking the more positive approach of first being
tough on themselves … and not simply preventing others from achieving their
goals.
Perhaps the idea of
performance-based compensation for politicians really deserves to be taken out
of the realm of satire and into reality. But that will probably remain a pious dream.
After all, who would make the decisions on such legislation? Exactly. Politicians.
