Please Advise
This is my first ever foray into Springfield. I am a 21-year-old moderate who, I hope, escaped the intellectual clutches of college life without floating away into an unrealistic ideological fantasyland.
Don’t get me wrong; I am as optimistic as any good youngster needs to be. But I question everything. And I tell ya, my two short months here have generated an avalanche of questions. Too many. An endless list. Insurmountable.
In fact, I think there are a grand total of two things that I really do know for sure:
1) Working with the irreplaceable Rich Miller makes me the luckiest 21-year-old in the state.
2) No matter how hard I try, I will always have 100x more questions than answers.
Even though it is daunting, I have to start learning somewhere. Why not here? It would be silly not to tap into the wealth of knowledge, experience, and wisdom of the experts who traipse these electronic grounds.
So here’s a small sampling of a few things that have been troubling my undeveloped political mind.
Where I am going wrong?
- Do some legislators feel that they have a quota of bills to introduce each session? I am flabbergasted while trudging through the thousands of pieces of legislation. Is discussing the state government’s role in hand-washing a valuable use of time? Preposterous.
- Do public officials show real emotion in public? I’ve seen glimpses of it, but I am never sure when it is genuine or just an act. During the recent electric rate fiasco I was trying hard to read those outbursts, but I just couldn’t peg them. Is there a way to tell the passionate from the actors?
- Can someone really be “owed” a public office? It isn’t a Christmas bonus. It is a job. A difficult job. This discussion of Hastert’s upcoming open seat troubles me. Why do we talk about Sen. Lauzen, or anyone else, being “owed” anything? Who owes him? I understand that experience, contacts, and reputation are factors in an election. But that’s just it, they are factors in a candidacy, not the end all be all.
- Why doesn’t the public know that most Republicans and Democrats actually do like each other? They are friends. Poker games, fishing trips, and dinner plans almost always involve the intermingling of the parties. Party here is oftentimes like eye-color, ignored and hard to determine. Yet, ask most citizens and many presume that the two types of people are in a constant death match. Have elections distorted the reality of Springfield life that much?
- State politics still is a family affair, isn’t it? Obviously I knew that familial connections were instrumental in giving many a leg up in this political sport. But call me naïve, I didn’t realize how strong it remains. The more people I meet here, the more I’m learning how hard it is to get into the game, unless someone is holding a seat for you.
- Has any group, organization, department, individual, or program said that they don’t need more money? Can we ever make things better without raising $32 billion?
I’ll stop now.
Please advise an amateur.
15 comments:
Paul,
It's great that you're working with Rich. There are few sources of information about our state government, so you're filling a vital need.
Now, two cents on three questions:
1) Bill quotas: some legislators are prolific because they really have a lot of ideas. Others are prolific because interest groups know that these legislators will introduce just about anything. Because there are a few legislators who will introduce 100+ bills, it ups the standard for everyone. Who wants to be knows as the lazy legislator who only introduced one bill? Keep in mind that in the US Senate, one bill for a freshman is about par for the course.
2) Emotions. I think that there are a lot of emotional legislators in the state house. They are just not emotional on every issue. But watch when an issue cuts close to the heart -- especially if it affects a family member. Every now and then, a legislator actually changes the course of debate by showing real emotion. The rest of the time: it's an act. If you hang around long enough, you'll know who's acting and when. Also, you'll see real emotion over petty issues, often perceived personal slights. It's ugly, but it's there.
3) "Owed an office." For many Illinois elected officials, this is a career. When people talk about being "owed an office" it's a lot like junior executives at a corporation talking about deserving a promotion. Almost no one really thinks the voters owe a politician a vote. Those that fall into that trap end up like Phil Crane.
Keep up the good work.
Why doesn’t the public know that most Republicans and Democrats actually do like each other?
It's a perception which is mainly propagated by infotainers, bloggers, even the MSM. A lot of people view the 2 political sides being 'at war' with each other. People occupying the most extreme party lines of either side of the spectrum have become 'hero's' and are viewed as something to be aspired to. Moderates/bi-polar pragmatists, and little l's/Big L's are something to be spurned.
Ideological purity sucks.
Paul,
Illinois is run by "3 men in a room" (credit to Jim Broadway).
These 3 men are the Gov., House Majority Leader, and Senate Maj. leader.
If one chamber is controled by an opposing party, then 2 other men may be allowed to join. These would/might be the minority leaders of each chamber.
The forces/people that impact these 3/5 men are; Teacher's unions/Education Associations, Chamber's of Commerce, the Trial Bar, and Big Campaign donors (usually seeking access to state contracts or some other form of political protection.)
Other players, like King Richard and the Earl of Stroger, have the ear of the "3 men in a room" based upon their ability to effect either their election or the election of one or two state legislators who might rate slightly higher than caucus drone.
As for bills, no matter how good a bill is, or how prolific a legilator is in submitting them, the committees are controled by the 2 of the 3 men in a room, and therefore, pointless.
If the House or Senate leaders don't want it, it isn't coming to the floor.
___
If you are bright-eyed, bushy-tailed true believer (left or right will do) who tries to run against one of the place holders in the legislature, then one of the "4 tops" (House and Senate Maj & Min leaders) will open the campaign checkbooks and guarantee that their placeholder beats you.
Should that place holder actually vote "their conscience/their District" over the objections of one of the "4 Tops", then the top in question will find a more suitable lackey, and open their check book to the challenger.
__
That's Illinois Politics in a nutshell. As a Yung'n, you stand a 1 in 10 chance of effecting positive change, a 3 in 10 chance in securing a "soldier" position that puts you in line to be a legislative stooge if/when someone steps out of line, and a 6 in 10 chance of getting a juicy contract if you kiss the proper rings.
The "trifecta" in Illinois is to pull 2-3 pensions for working for the state/local pig trough for a while, and then "retire" to "consultant" status, where you get nice fees for showing people increasingly clever ways to ream the taxpayer. (School Superintendents have perfected this art)
The other good advice on this post should not be ignored, but never forget what you read here. It will become more and more clear as time goes on.
Wow, Extreme Wisdom. How depressing, and yet probably accurate.
These are good questions. I'm almost as much as an amatuer as you are. The fact that you have to ask these questions shows how messed up Illinois can be. Oh yeah I'll agree with Dan I. Ideological purity sucks.
the other anonymous - One bill per freshman U.S. senator? Impressive. It's the first detail I've yet to hear where I prefer the national example. Just maybe in that mold a legislator can truly champion an issue. No soul can champion 100 issues.
dan l - Your comments ring true. I'm curious, you are clearly a moderate conservative, yet I remember reading that you rarely agree with Andrew Sullivan. I just recently finished his latest and enjoyed it. I would have guessed that you'd be a fan, what's the beef?
extreme wisdom - Many thanks for your expertise. I knew that power was monopolized by the Big 3. But your outtake is particularly deressing; though I'm sure ultimately true. Hell, I'll take a 1 in 10 chance for change...those are odds worth building a life around. If you would have upped the ante, say 1 in 1,000, I might be considering a new field. :-)
Paul,
Keep a positive outlook and be true to yourself and your beliefs. Idealism is not bad. You can (and probably will, if you listen to Rich) make a difference. Guys like extreme and dan usually have personal grudges that influence their positions and motivate their stridency and unwillingness to even try to consider an opposing view.
Their obsessive hatred of public education and educators lead me to believe that they are wannabe teachers who somehow never made the grade, so they blame the system.
While the game can be frustrating at times it is fascinating and filled with colorful characters.My guess is that they are all actors.Never let them see you sweat.
Bill,
I can't speak for Dan, but it is only "idealism" that motivates me in my never-ending quest to expose the Public Education System for the corrupt and protected monopoly that it is.
This is not an "obsessive hatred" of teachers. It is an idealistic battle to achieve that "educated populace" we are paying for instead of funding a corrupt "system" that uses "children" as a stick with which to beat taxpayers.
I'm hardly a "wannabe" teacher, though I'm sure I could teach circles around many.
Before you chide others about "making the grade" you ought to look at SAT scores of the education majors compared to other less protected industries. The GREs aren't any better.
I proposed raising taxes to the state and zeroing out the Education portion of the property tax. ($1-2 bn + tax cut for IL)
I then propose abolishing the silly and wasteful construct of a "district" and converting every IL public school into an independent charter.
I then propose ending education apartheid by funding every child equally through a $7,000+ scholarship redeemable at any school.
You all know who I am and where to find me, and I've offered to debate this issue with any one, anywhere in Illinois.
You and your ilk offer nothing but more carping about more funding for the same mediocre and corrupt actors absent one iota of accountability, and do so using insults from behind a curtain of anonymity.
But hey, like my earlier post points out, you have the best protection (and legislators) money can buy.
Yeah you know me, I'm Mr. Personal Grudge. Bill, you know the funny thing is, I regularly consider other opinions. Lumping me into a 'party line' kinda category is just....well....stupid.
Do I dig into the hate mongers a little hard? Sure I do. If you love the hate mongers that much, then by all means narrow your little mind and think of me as just an axe grinding blogger.
@Paul - I actually exaggerate my disagreements with Sully. A lot of people think that if you dislike Sullivan it's because of his well known questionable fund raising issues. My beef is a little bit deeper:
I constantly see a weird streak that runs through him. Sometimes I can't tell if it's that he's actually naive, cloistered into his own private little world where issues have only one layer of nuance, or if he's constantly just playing hide the ball with the audience.
Either way, when you start noticing that trend, you start questioning his assumptions, and that why you find yourself falling from concordance with him, regardless of whether your conclusions match.
Here Paul.
No better an example of Sullivan playing hide the ball than here
my "ilk"?, "narrow your little mind"?, "hate mongers"???
I must have hit a nerve. Does the truth hurt, fellas?
Spare me the cheap Joe McCarthy imitations. Your views on public education, fortunately, are woefully out of the mainstream. But just keep plugging away. Someday, someone might pay attention.
Extreme,
I'm glad to read that it is idealism that motivates you. I always thought it was shameless self-promotion.
Which views on education have I expressed that are 'woefully out of the main stream'?
Just out of curiosity. I thought that the entire point of everything that I said about the schools was that, with the exception of those in the education system, pretty much everybody agrees.
-The schools could be better.
-Throwing more money at them doesn't solve anything.
-The issue of school reform is an issue with legs.
Which of those 3 do you take issue with?
"ilk"
1. family, class, or kind: he and all his ilk.
–adjective
2. same.
—Idiom
3. of that ilk,
a. (in Scotland) of the same family name or place: Ross of that ilk, i.e., Ross of Ross.
b. of the same class or kind.
_____
That's hardly an insult.
_____
Since I admit to being a "shameless self-promoter" in my presentations, I must plead guilty.
I also happen to shamelessly promote great ideas (like school choice) that you and your ilk are afraid to debate with me.
Of course, you have the luxury of hiding behind the skirts of the "mainstream", though that stream is changing course with every story of school waste, failure, and corruption.
As that stream changes, your ilk will be forced to debate, and when you debate, you will lose.
Fund Children, not bureaucracies. There is no intellectually sound argument against school choice.
I know what ilk means. I attended a public shcool. I was referring to the tendency of people of YOUR ilk to use the phrase. Check out a history book if you are too young to remember.
I know what ilk means. I attended a public shcool. I was referring to the tendency of people of YOUR ilk to use the phrase. Check out a history book if you are too young to remember.
What are you talking about?
Post a Comment