We should treat the president like the garbage man
By guest columnist Craig J. Cantoni
Do we cheer the garbage man for doing his necessary but filthy job? Do we revere septic tank cleaners for doing their necessary but smelly work? Do we honor undertakers with statues in the public square for doing their necessary but creepy work?
Of course not.
Then why do we cheer, revere and honor politicians for doing their necessary but filthy, smelly and creepy work? Why is Washington D.C. cluttered with statues and monuments to them but not to the garbage man, the septic tank cleaner and the undertaker?
You might answer that a monument like the Lincoln Memorial is important because it honors Lincoln for freeing the slaves and keeping the Union together. Good answer, if it were true. Actually, thousand of Americans died to free the slaves and keep the union together. Contrary to what we were brainwashed to believe as kids, Lincoln doesn’t deserve a bigger monument than any of them. (Then there is the issue of whether the Civil War truly was unavoidable and whether the horror of slavery would have ended on its own without the tragedy of war and the subsequent tragedy of Jim Crow.)
The garbage man, the septic tank cleaner and the undertaker are necessary to stop the spread of pestilence. Politicians are necessary to stop us from using clubs to resolve our differences, but, as history shows, they often stir our primitive passions to club other tribes over imagined differences. All of these occupations reflect the dark side of human existence, but only the job of politician requires deceit, hypocrisy and egomania.
Is that something to celebrate and honor?
The Founders understood that government is a necessary evil. That makes the representatives of government a necessary evil. As such, it’s important to select them carefully, to keep a close eye on them, and to limit their job description to protecting life, liberty and property. But honor them?
The best way to limit politicians’ lust for power is to treat them like the garbage man. That means selecting mentally balanced people for the job, recognizing the necessity of their work, and firing them when they deviate from their job description. It doesn’t mean erecting statues and monuments to them and crossing the street to gawk at them if they are in our neighborhood.
Imagine how much better the nation would be if a president came to town and no one showed up to pay homage or to demonstrate subservience by playing “Hail to the Chief” when Air Force One arrives, as if this is a tribal chieftain and the subjects are in loin cloths with bones through their noses. After all, we don’t play “Hail to the Garbage Man” when he exits the garbage truck.
In such a nation, the job of president would attract people with humility and normal egos. It would not attract the likes of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or John McCain — all of whom want to remake the world in their likeness instead of restricting themselves to protecting life, liberty and property.
The closest I’ve come to such a nation was a business trip to Iceland years ago. As my host was driving around Reykjavik and showing me the sights, he pointed to a non-descript building that resembled a large suburban ranch house. “That’s the office of the prime minister,” he said. “Would you like to go in and meet him?” he asked as nonchalantly as if he were asking me to meet his garbage man.
“Just walk in and meet him?” I responded incredulously. Like other Americans, I had gotten so used to treating politicians better than garbage men that I couldn’t imagine such a thing.
I’ve since placed my childhood notions about presidents and other politicians where they belong: in the garbage can of bad ideas.
An author and columnist, Mr. Cantoni can be reached at ccan2@aol.com.
| More from Alan Korwin
Stumble It!
February 24th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Actually the true reasons for the North going to war with the South were economic.
There was the 3/5’s vote. The south wanted to “count” each slave as 3/5th’s a person for census counts on determining the number of representatives they got in Congress.
Also, the south felt that each state should be free to make international trade agreements with foreign states for goods. The South didn’t much like the tariffs placed on foreign goods. Because of these tariffs the south was forced to buy manufactured goods from the north instead of foreign entities.
The North was right (of course). We had a protectionist train of thought throughout the 2nd half of the 19th century. (With tariffs) our GDP went from 1/2 of the UK’s just after the Civil War to double by 1901.
Protectionism (not free trade) is what helps nations. This is why Korea, Japan, and China are all kicking our butts. Because we’re THE ONLY freetraders. THEY are all PROTECTIONIST.
Notwitshstanding, the constitution seems to lay out that rights flow in this direction: the people>>the states>>the federal government.
Despite the fact that the North was right about protectionism, when they enforced that will through military action instead of the bargaining table the flow of power was irrevocably changed to this direction: the fed>>the states>> the people. The exact opposite intent of what the founding fathers wanted.
At the end of the bill of rights there is a sentence that states:
Any rights not stated here, are reserved for the people and the states respectively (meaning in that order).
And yet time and time again I have seen decisions handed down by SCOTUS that reads the exact opposite: you only have rights laid out in the constitution. The constitution IS NOT a document detailing our rights, but a document detailing the RESTRICTIONS upon government.
Anything not covered, congress cannot make a law to restrict WITHOUT another constitutional amendment.
It’s truly incredible how little people know their history. And as we have all been told:
Those who don’t know their history are DOOMED to repeat it.
February 24th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
As durn furriner, I have the utmost respect for the American Constitution. It was a bold attempt – and the best so far – to recognise the supremacy of the man on the street (Yes, you TMOTS).
The general view of tmots at the time was that Kings should know their place and generally occupy it elsewhere. preferably in lands where durn furriners live. But sadly one old doddering King was just replaced with another. Electing a King makes him no less a King. Tmots had his say and was put smartly back in his harness and told to bite the metal bar in his mouth.
I liked that film a while back (James Garner and Jack Lemmon as two past presidents ganging up on the current one) where they each had their own irreverend words to ‘Hail to the Chief’. Something along the lines of , ‘Hail to the Chief, ‘cus the Chief’s a nasty bastard….”.
Meanwhile Craig J. Cantoni, new to MND might think about….
Vote#1 Amfortas. A President who will sluice the sewers and cart away the garbage.