The Wisconsin Recall – A Commentary

The Madison Conservative had intended these coming weeks, starting last week and continuing today, to present what it believes to be the planks of a substantive platform for this presidential election year.

The coming recall vote this Tuesday in Wisconsin however has necessitated a delay in the continuing presentation of that platform so that the very real and critical issues surrounding this bit of political theater may be adequately addressed, for they deal with issues at the heart of American democratic self-rule.

The actual merits behind the recall election are not particularly salient at this point. The special election recall vote has been placed on the ballot and thus must be dealt with within that given reality.

The imperative for a recall election must be based on serious grounds of governance malfeasance. The United States Constitution calls for the removal of presidents and jurists for acts of treason and for high crimes and misdemeanors. The arguments given for utilizing the recall option in Wisconsin are based solely upon disagreements on policy. The main thrust of the argument against the governor is that he has decided to emasculate the unions in his state by removing the rights to collective bargaining by various public employee unions.

Without discussing in detail the merits of the argument being presented by the opposition, the Madison Conservative does pose the following query relative to the rights of collective bargaining:

Exactly who are the public unions bargaining with? In private business, the unions negotiate with management. Public unions can only negotiate with the people and who is it that is speaking for the best interests of the populace? Politicians, who seem to want to curry electoral support and favor with the unions and so bestow contracts that would normally not pass the laugh test in the private business community.

Consider what would be the result if the recall election is successful and the Wisconsin governor is removed from office for no other reason than the hope for short term political advantage by his opponents. We would no longer have elected officials who would act with political courage to deal with the very real problems our local, state and federal governments are grappling with today.

No sane individual would dare act against the popular will with the intent of serving the public good. True leadership is defined as leading a group towards what you believe to be right in the face of popular opposition.

This nation has constitutionally created recall mechanisms – they are called Election Day. That is the time for the electorate to makeits determination on the policies of their elected officials and not randomly because political opponents would rather squander precious financial resources – the Wisconsin recall special election is estimated to cost the state in the area of several million dollars – in the name of political sport.

The special interests have pumped untold millions into the election both in support and in opposition. These nefarious entities of both political extremes are predominantly out of state and are interested only in advancing their particular ideologies, the public good be damned.

There are rare but necessary times to invoke a recall election.

This is not one of them, and the Wisconsin electorate must rail against it, with the greater American electorate fully supporting that effort.

The Political Act of Cowardice

The concurrent legislative tussles in Wisconsin and in Washington D.C. both this past week and undoubtedly in this upcoming week should be of grave concern to the citizens who have elected the individuals responsible for the current state of the nation, from both the state and federal perspectives.

First, a specific line from a speech given by Edmund Burke, a contemporary and political influence of the founders, to the electors of Bristol on November 3^rd, 1774 should give the electorate pause with respect to their representatives, as it is as relevant today as it was when originally delivered:

“Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”

We are not a true democracy but a democratic republic, and as such, we elect representatives to engage in the business of government on our behalf. The populace at large need not concern themselves with the minutiae involved in such an enterprise: the social contract between the government and the governed is implicit in its foundation that the elected officials will do no harm to the country. There are of course many methods and manners to accomplish certain national goals, and therein should lay the debate.

This nation is now facing truly historic financial distress. Wisconsin has become the microcosm and prism through which these issues are viewed. The nation looks for calm, reasoned approaches to resolve this overriding issue of national security.  The Congress has the detailed information necessary to do this; the nation as a whole does not. The Congress has the authority to course correct the ship of state as needed. These individuals have been entrusted with the safety and security of this great nation, for ourselves and out posterity.

It is becoming evident that said trust may have been seriously misplaced.

The political rancor from Washington D.C. & Wisconsin this past week and for the week ahead has been nothing but diatribes eyed towards gaining political advantage and talk of a governmental shut down.

In both cases, however, the elected officials in question have opted to shun their responsibilities and flee, demonstrating nothing short of cowardice when leadership is mandated. The Congress will not be able to tend to these immediate financial concerns as this is the week they are closed for Presidents Day.

 The irony of that particular reality is not lost on the American people.

Concurrently, certain state senators in Wisconsin have fled the state, assuring the absence of a quorum, with the intent of forcing that the business of the state government be driven down to its knees: they have collectively taken their ball and gone missing.

Neither set of elected officials are demonstrating nothing but that they are charlatans to the offices they hold.

The second point is a simple one for the electorate to weigh as they ponder the wisdom of electing those individuals currently in office: with minor variations, elected officials take the following oath:

‘I do solemnly swear {or affirm} that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God’.

Given their conscious decisions to forgo their sworn obligations and responsibilities, can it be fairly argued that they are fulfilling their oath of office?