paisleypiper's Diaryland Diary ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- do you yield? Gentle Piper from Paisley, do you yield? Quinn helped me drive a group of students to our state capital to participate in a series of dialogues for Raise Your Voice . During the first part of the day, our group watched the proceedings of the state-level house session. This was the first time I had ever witnessed a session of a house of representatives at any level and I found the language intriguing. First, the representatives did not have names � instead, they referred to each other as �gentleman� (and I suppose if a woman spoke it would be �lady�) as they debated the life and direction of our sorry, miserable state. In one way, the surreal disembodiment of the representatives underscored their function � to represent constituents from their respective counties. But on the other hand, I wondered if this surreal disembodiment actually leads to the lack of investment and interest that appeared to me as an observer of the proceedings. Very few representatives sat at their neat little desks furnished with neat little laptop computers. And the ones who did sit at their desks appeared �otherwise engaged� in their own conversations, making side deals, completing paperwork, surfing the net. Twice the gentleman from Bollinger had to call for a quorum to move the proceedings forward at which time the speaker asked that the bells be rang and brought the representatives back into the chamber with their coffee to sit indifferently in the chamber while the same five people debated. I think our democratic process is outdated. The fact that the sessions meet so long means that the side business has to happen at the same time as the proceedings. In the three hours I watched, nothing happened. Would it be out of line for representatives to have to pay attention? To not carry on side-bar conversations while other representatives are speaking? How can the representatives �address� another respresentative and ask that the other representative yield to be addressed if they are off having coffee with special guests? The introduction of special guests was an arcane show that brought about the participation of more of the representatives than the proceedings (given that the proceedings were focused on funding for education, this was outrageous for me). When the speaker � a tall oak-tree of a woman with dyed blond hair and a gravely, automated voice � called the introduction of special guests, the men in cheap suits all took position in their burgundy leather swivel chairs and began making moves for the microphones. Here is a dramatization, based on my notes: MS: Gentleman from Greene This formulae continued for quite a while and it puzzled me how the introduction of special guests could be the most popular segment of the session. And to think that here I had driven a crew of busy, working university students, in hopes that they would be civically inspired to witness these bizarre proceedings. The only thing missing was the clever wearing of white powdered wigs. Perhaps that would help connect the disconnected representatives to their charge. Because schooling shaped my perception of politics, I find myself dismayed at the current state of the body politic in our country. Would it be better if the representatives had to answer in their own name to the discussions at hand? Is there something in the language of conformity/uniformity that inspires this disregard? Since we have voted in a bunch of self-serving dorks anyway, maybe it would be better if their personal reputations were held to the fire a little more. The position of representatives in the world outside of the House is one that is so personal. The media drags each candidate through the mud of their pasts and the pasts of their family members and creates an election that feels personal to the voters. My guess is that the idea is to enable voters to identify with the representative and feel as though he or she is voting for the person who would best represent his or her interests. And then Mr. Smith goes to Capital City and becomes the Gentleman from Bollinger in all official interactions. Do we need to think about how to make our most sacred institution � representative politics/democracy�have more currency in this individualized world of America? Is there a way to do that without sacrificing the role and duty of an elected official? I am against making a career of politics. In my utopian world view, serving in office is something that someone gives to the city, state, country. At the same time, campaigns cost money and the only way to get the disenfranchised people into office is to have connections with the moneyed, which requires a track record, hence, a career in politics. I cannot imagine that this sorry state is radically different than a few other states in this union. When I vote for local politicians, for the most part, my deciding factors are: Who is less corrupt? It is a tricky gamble given the selection pool. If, dear reader, you knew of the agents of evil this state has produced you would be more likely to understand the seriousness of my quandary. We have a local election on the horizon for city council. And I find myself having to chose between two people I mind the least. This means that one of them won�t make it to our local idiot magnate / municipal machine. That depresses me. I think we need to call a state of emergency and permit both of the least objectionable parties (even though of them has a husband who narrowly escaped being a convicted felon and instead has a brother-in-law who is a convicted felon, but then we have a convicted felon running for mayor, I believe against an ineffective mayor who is neutral like fast food but at least has a good heart and is not a criminal). Some people tell me that they do not like local politics because they don�t know what is going on when they tune-in. I want to say "come on" nothing ever changes in local politics. It is like going into a chain store and knowing exactly where to find the socks. We are the antithesis of Camelot. It's true, it's true, the council has made it clear (somewhat warped version of the song Camelot plays in the wings) Gentle Piper from Paisley now yields�.. 8:15 p.m. - 2003-02-23 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
||||||