Those words resonate deep in the core of every American from about the 2nd Grade, and for as long as they live. As well they should. They are inspirational, the essential distillation of what good Government actually means.
Can any of us hold our hand on our heart and say, and say with conviction, that any US Government in living memory, has ever truly lived up to the standard set when the Constitution was written?
Let's see if we can fix that ...
---
First up, an admission. I can't fix it. I can't even vote yet, I am a resident, but not a citizen. You, on the other hand, and millions of you from shore to shining shore can fix it. It will take time, and it will take courage, but the future isn't written yet, and y'all have the pen.
There are a number of governing principles that will need to be accepted before meaningful change can be effected. My Grandad ... who was wise beyond his already considerable years, maintained that "money is the root of all evil". He had a point, if an arguable one. My Grandad was a miner in the coalfields of South Yorkshire, England. He retired early to care for his son, my uncle, who was permanently disabled in a car wreck. As such, he never had much money, and was suspicious of those who had. I guess they never did him many favours, although the National Union of Mineworkers did. Funny that!
The situation in Washington is bad. Beyond bad, it has lead to a disconnect between the Federal Government and those governed in a manner, and to a degree I have never seen before. Sure the British moan, as do the French, the Germans etc .... But here is where we part company. For all the complaining, those countries do still believe that the Government is "their" government. They own it and they do, by and large, generally feel that the government at least tries to do the right thing.
Not so much here.
It has become much worse, probably since Reagan. Nixon was bad, but he was fired and the checks and balances seemed still to work. Reagan, and Thatcher in the UK, codified the idea that "greed is good". Look after number one. You can make it by your own efforts, and wealth is not a consequence, wealth is an ambition.
Creating wealth is, of course, honourable. Chasing money is not. Money, for it's own sake has become the new American Dream, and we have allowed our institutions to devote themselves not to creating wealth, but to simply creating money; and we have rewarded them accordingly. Why should a middle class working guy not kick against the imposition of taxes on the rich, when he is lead to believe that rich is the only worthwhile ambition, that the poor are feckless scroungers, and he too might be rich one day.
This mindset has increasingly, and at an increasing pace, been allowed to corrupt the political process too. In what world is it reasonable, for example, that $150 million be spent in pursuit of one Governorship?
The other thing that might be more difficult for some to accept is that Corporations are not people. No, really, they are not. Cut me and I bleed. Cut BP and they donate so much money to your opponent that they bury you in the midterms. Then they go write the laws in California, just to be pissy! The SCOTUS is made of men, by men. It is not always right. It might be if all it did was consider the legal aspects of cases before it, but it doesn't. It enters both the social and political environments and, as such, becomes another Branch of the greater problem.
A final thing is to simply state that money does not equal speech. Well it might, but all my money ever says to me is "Goodbye", and that is not a conversation.
Here comes the tricky bit. How do we expect our politicians to answer to two different constituencies, and deliver the "For the People" bit? Under the current arrangements they are compelled to raise money, and each cycle they have to raise more, and more ad infinitum. They don't have a choice in this, and few are able to raise money solely from The People, as Barack Obama was able. Citizens United was the equivalent of dropping a three hundred pound guy on the end of a see-saw that two Kindergarten kids were trying to balance. If there is a silver lining to that dark financial cloud it is simply that Citizens United served to highlight a very damaging problem that already existed. It's not much of a lining.
What might happen were we able to remove ALL the private money from our electoral process?
Think about it for a moment, swill it around the glass of intellectual curiosity, then take a deep breath.
No political ads on TV. None. No robo-calls. And while we are at it, let us throw out paid lobbying too <-- That bit, right there ... it's a no-brainer. Exit three hundred pound guy, stage left, and the kids get back their see-saw.</p>
Now money isn't evil, and campaigns are not free, so we really do have to fund them in a manner that leaves the person elected free of the constraints of large donations, and free of the need to solicit them. So We the People can pay. After all, it's our government, and we need it.
Oh, and the Corporations? Well they are so keen to pay anyway that they won't mind chipping in the bulk of the cost; and if they do mind, we'll make them.
We can pay for the airtime the campaigns need to communicate. On a sensible basis, and with decent sets of rules, it needn't be vastly expensive and it would allow equal access to all candidates. Fair and balanced. Even Fox couldn't argue with that it being, after all, their own motto.
The next bit is to physically bring the Federal Government closer to the people, and reduce the "Washington Effect". Congress can stay where it is. It really is a beautiful building, and we are in the process of making it a meaningful one too. Other government departments should be devolved from DC to the States. I dunno ... Pentagon to Florida, Treasury to Maine. You get the drift, work out the detail.
The next suggestion would be to try to get away from the idea that we need to Get Out The Vote. We don't. What we need to do is Get The Vote Out. That means that rather than trying to enthuse folk to make a trip to vote, that we take the vote to them. We do it by making it very easy to vote. We put Polling Places in schools ad malls. We allow Cell Phone voting. Yes it is possible, it is safe and it is secure. And young people will vote, which is probably why the idea would attract massive opposition.
I'm out of time. I don't have the answers. I don't offer this as a prescription. Some bits I know are very good ideas, even if they are not particularly new ideas.
What do I know anyway? I'm a Brit, and I live in Oklahoma where, at last, we are now free from Sharia Law. Catch up, the rest of you!
One final thought which I offer not as a suggestion, but as a contrast.
In Australia voting is compulsory. Australians generally do not see any civil liberty issues with this, and turnout regularly tops 98%. Aussies living abroad are not compelled to vote, but so invested are they that in a recent general election, the biggest single Polling Place was the Australian Embassy in London. Ex-Pats traveled from as far afield as Scotland and Wales to vote in London. Because it was their election and dammit they were going to vote.
Be nice to get to 98% even if we did it differently.