Many, many of us are upset and even angry over the failure of our federal government to get things done, over their failure to move our country down the road to solving some of our huge problems and challenges. Yet individually we feel helpless – as if there is nothing that we can do to make Congress do things that make sense and could be done regardless of the perceived partisan squabbling – squabbling that paralyzes Congress’ ability to compromise and enact sensible change.

Yes, the parties do indeed seem irrevocably divided. However, are we in the electorate also divided? Do we let our differences take control rather than uniting behind common sense change that could be accomplished? Do we let labels such as “conservative” or “liberal” dominate our response to politics and governing?

There are many issues that genuinely divide America – and they are important issues. Issues such as abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage, increasing taxes and the size and role of our military in a time of fiscal challenges. There are many others – maybe too numerous to mention here.

All these issues are very, very important to an awful lot of people – people on various sides of each. Yet, are these issues and others like them the defining issues of our time?

… or by making the dividing issues our priority, are we losing sight of a larger threat to our country? Without judging, opining or taking sides on any of the controversial issues themselves, what if the larger threat is that Congress is not beholden to the people anymore? What if Congress is beholden to the very few in our country who can provide large sums of campaign funds? What if a plutocracy has formed or is being formed?

If members are required to look like they are fighting the good fight –

as defined by their funders

– does that result in an abysmal failure to pass change that does make simple common sense? If I partner with someone on the other side of the aisle to pass laws that make sense to huge majorities of the electorate but am then perceived by potential funders as being unacceptable, what is in it for me?

An example of an issue that could be moved forward quite easily if it could be unbundled from the political gamesmanship played by both parties is Social Security. There are actually a number of relatively small changes to Social Security that would extend the life of the trust funds for quite a long time. One example: adjusting the cap on wages and salaries in order to return the amount of income exposed to FICA taxes to a percentage equivalent to the percentage that was used when the program was created (about 90%) would greatly contribute to the program’s longevity. Is the philosophical position against ALL tax increases really more important to our country than extending the life of this hugely important and hugely successful program?

The power each one of us has is “the vote”. Yet, if we allow ourselves to be divided over issues that may be of less importance to the country’s future, our collective vote is divided. Is it wasted?

Is this solvable – or are we doomed to the inevitable decline that will result because we’ve focused upon the wrong issues and by doing so, we’ve failed to require actions on items that simply make common sense and upon which huge numbers of us CAN agree?

What was it that Abe Lincoln said about a “house divided”? Didn’t Rome decline and ultimately fall because of internal and arbitrary divisions by those who became more focused on their own wants and needs that upon the good of the whole?

Where are we and where will we go? How can we change the current paradigm?

As James Madison wrote in the Federalist Paper #52, Congress is to be “dependent on the people alone.”

Yet in our current systems of electing and governing, candidates require very large sums of money to have a chance at winning their election. Thus, a dependency on BIG MONEY and by natural extension, the people and organizations that can supply BIG MONEY, has overtaken the dependency upon the people as prescribed by our Founding Fathers.

I listened to Republic Lost by Lawrence Lessig this summer while driving to Springfield Illinois to take in some Abraham Lincoln history (which, by the way, I highly recommend). This one argument seems to overcome all others. How can Congress focus on the good of the whole when they are quite naturally required to focus so much time and energy on raising money? Why would they work together when competitive pressures require catering to their money sources and when they are required to take positions that will continue future flows of campaign finance funding?

As Lessig states, the corruption is not necessarily quid pro quo corruption (although we are all aware of cases of that from both sides of the aisle), but it is systemic corruption – corruption of the systems of electing and governing and quite definitely, corruption of the intended “dependency on the people alone.”

Is there anyone out there who truly believes that big donors don’t expect a return on their investment? Does anyone think they donate huge money for the good of the whole?