 |
Editor's ViewpointMeditations Of A Minnesota Mossback |
The Largest Real Estate Transaction Ever … And Adding Up The Zeroes
Like many Americans, I was unable to attend the inauguration last month. President Obama’s speech was tremendously moving, especially in light of the book I am finishing: “John Adams,” by David McCullough.
I had always been under the impression that the forebears of our country enjoyed decades of political harmony as they labored to craft the documents that underpin our great nation.
This book wasted no time in disabusing me of that notion.
Even under President George Washington, political discord was brewing. It had its roots in the idea of what government should be and do.
From his early years in politics, John Adams acquired a reputation for steering his own course, often crossing party lines to follow his conscience. This continued through his presidency and informed his son, John Quincy Adams, who entered politics like his father before him.
When Napoleon Bonaparte ran into trouble with his dreams of empire in North America and needed some ready cash (many of his troops, sent to the Caribbean, died of yellow fever), President Jefferson, our third president, was quick to embrace Bonaparte’s offer and embark on the largest real estate transaction ever: the Louisiana Purchase.
These days, we think that step was a no-brainer: who could pass up the acquisition of 800,000 square miles—from the Mississippi to the Rockies—for $15 million?
But Congress argued that the President did not have the power to make the buy. Eventually, Jefferson, who knew a good deal when he saw one, prevailed, but not without some help beyond party lines.
It took the support of the likes of Senator John Quincy Adams, the son of our second president—who, like his father before him, cast his vote for what he thought was right—for Jefferson to succeed in more than doubling the size of our country.
Grumbling followed. One congressman deplored the support that young Adams gave his president: “Curse the stripling, how he apes his sire,” he wrote.
But for his part, young John Quincy Adams told his parents, “…my conduct has given satisfaction to neither side, and both are offended at what they consider a vain and foolish presumption of singularity, or an ambition of taking a lead different from the view of either [party]. All this I cannot help.”
Although his principles cost John Quincy Adams his Senate seat, he went on to become our sixth president.
As our governments in Washington and in St. Paul make their decisions in 2009, I hope that elected representatives take heed of the good that can be done when—at the possible expense of their political careers— they consider once more what it means to be a free nation.
I hope they consider seriously John Adams’ quote: “There is nothing I dread so much as a division of the Republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader and converting measures in opposition to each other.” And I sincerely hope that we don’t waste another crisis.
By getting bogged down by immaterial legislation, I believe we risk doing just that.
In my column last February 20, I made a prediction.
The temptation to dabble in passing legislation to protect the silly geese of this world from their own poor choices must simply be irresistible. Ergo, yesterday, a seatbelt law. Today, a smoking ban.
Tomorrow, someone in Minnesota will follow [the state of ] Washington’s lead and propose regulating cigarettes in private vehicles.
[“Editor’s Viewpoint,” February 20, 2008 issue of The Citizen] Last week, a Minnesota legislator introduced a bill to make it illegal in this state to smoke in cars while driving with passengers younger than 18.
Another bill will allow anglers to use two fishing lines instead of one.
I’m not going to dispute the health issues associated with smoking cigarettes in the dead of winter with the windows closed.
And I’m not going to argue that catching two fish at a time isn’t more efficient than reeling in one. (I thought the idea was to relax and have a good time?) That is beside the point.
Why, when the finances of our state and our nation are sinking fast, do some clueless representatives continue to propose bills which skirt the pressing issues of the day?
As we all know, the art of looking busy has nothing to do with productivity.
Am I completely off the mark in thinking that our legislature still has the capacity to make decisions of consequence—and to limit its own spending?
What we need is more bipartisan rapport and a deepseated desire to fix the government spending problem.
Until our representatives can agree to live within a budget and actually bank the excess in a good year, let them twiddle their thumbs.
Or add up the zeroes.
Sen. Ray Vandeveer, Rep. Matt Dean, Rep. Bob Dettmer and Rep. Paul Gardner all encourage their constituents to contact them. Visit www.house.leg. state.mn.us or www.senate.leg. state.mn.us for direct e-mail links.