Venting

[skeptic]

According to the National Council of BSA, one hundred and ninety-one members of the 113th Congress have participated in Scouting, either as a boy, an adult, or both. Thirty of those are Eagles as well.

 

Below is a list of the individuals who are Eagles.

 

My challenge to these individuals, especially the Eagles, would be for them to take a serious self-evaluation and consider whether they are truly living up to the tenets of the Scout Oath and Law. My personal perception is that the answer is mostly NO; but that is simply my opinion. And that applies to almost the entire membership of our Congress, as well as the Executive and Judicial branches too.

Unfortunately, I do not see these comments, if they were even seen by the group, will have much effect. But, if even a small percentage takes it into consideration, it would be a plus.

 

In the 113th Congress (2013-15) there are 11 Eagle Scouts, (comprising about 14% of the male Senate membership). 6 are Republicans; 5 democrats. They are:

 

Lamar Alexander (R-TN)

Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)

Sherrod Brown (D-OH)

Thad Cochran (R-MS)

Mike Crapo (R-ID)

Mike Enzi (R-WY)

Mike Lee (R-UT)

Jeff Merkley (D-OR)

Ben Nelson (D-NE)

Jeff Sessions (R-AL)

Pat Toomey (R-PA)

 

Also are 19 Eagles in the House currently; 15 Republicans and 4 Democrats.

Representative John Garamendi (D); CA

Representative Dana Rohrabacher ®: CA

Representative Sanford D. Bishop Jr. (D); GA

Representative Gary Charles Peters (D); MI

Representative Sam Graves ®; MO

Representative Christopher H. Smith ®; NJ

Representative Chris Collins ®; NY

Representative Steve Stivers ®; OH

Representative Jim Bridenstine ®; OK

Representative Greg Walden ®; OR

Representative Lou Barletta ®; PA

Representative Mike G. Fitzpatrick ®; PA

Representative Glenn W. "GT" Thompson ®; PA

Representative Jim Cooper (D); TN

Representative Phil Roe, M.D. ®; TN

Representative Louie Gohmert ®; TX

Representative Jeb Hensarling ®; TX

Representative Pete Sessions ®; TX

Representative David B. McKinley ®; WV

 

 

[NJCubScouter]

The one I see on there from my state is Chris Smith, who has been in the House since 1981 (longer than anyone else from NJ.) I am not in his district and would not be voting for him if I was. I disagree with him on many issues. But I have to say that as politicians go, he is not so bad. He is known for very conservative positions on "social issues" but is a moderate on some other things. His "score" from the American Conservative Union is 60 percent, so I guess he would be considered a moderate-to-conservative, on their scale at least. I have a feeling that his somewhat moderate image and the fact that he is willing to work with Democrats is the reason why, after almost 35 years there, he has never been part of the Republican leadership in the House. At one time he was chairman of the Veteran's Affairs Committee but he bucked the Republican leadership too many times (such as by voting to spend more money on veterans' programs) and was bounced off the committee entirely. Now, with the Republicans in control again, by seniority he should be chairing a major committee, but chairs only a subcommittee. He is really part of the "old style" in Congress where people from different parties actually worked together to produce results for the country, rather than being in bitterly opposed partisan camps and not talking to each other.

 

So, among the Eagles in Congress, I think you could find a lot worse than Chris Smith, very easily. I see Louie Gohmert on the list, I would start there.

[SeattlePioneer]

<<My challenge to these individuals, especially the Eagles, would be for them to take a serious self-evaluation and consider whether they are truly living up to the tenets of the Scout Oath and Law. My personal perception is that the answer is mostly NO; but that is simply my opinion. And that applies to almost the entire membership of our Congress, as well as the Executive and Judicial branches too.

Unfortunately, I do not see these comments, if they were even seen by the group, will have much effect. But, if even a small percentage takes it into consideration, it would be a plus.>>

 

 

 

Personally, I consider this a ludicrous proposal.

 

 

 

Winston Churchill once said "The sermon on the Mount is the last word in personal ethics, but it is not the basis on which ministers of government are given their portfolios."

 

 

Managing the politics and government of the United States which allows a huge and highly diverse country to live together more or less peacefully is an enormously complex and contradictory process. The Scout Oath and Scout law are not the basis for governing the United States.

[skeptic]

The Scout Oath and Scout law are not the basis for governing the United States.

 

It is not suggested to be the governing directive; it suggested that those that work, or claim to work, in our representative government remember the basic tenets of the Oath and Law in how they do that work. You know, try and actually simply be "Trustworthy", and to have the "Courage" to stand against the party when you really know they are misguided, or be courteous to the opposition even if you do not like them or agree with them, especially if they are in what is generally seen as a position of respect, like President or head of the Senate or House, and stuff like that.

[NJCubScouter]

Managing the politics and government of the United States which allows a huge and highly diverse country to live together more or less peacefully is an enormously complex and contradictory process. The Scout Oath and Scout law are not the basis for governing the United States.

 

That is true, but until fairly recently government was carried out, in general, without nearly as much polarization and bitterness and demonization of the other side that we see today. There has always been partisanship, but the parties were at least talking to each other. Senators would debate a bill on one side or the other and go out for a drink together afterward. These days, a Republican (in particular) who shows any sign of working with Democrats is basically called a traitor and can essentially give up on any thought of advancement. I don't think John McCain would get the Republican nomination today, 6 years after he actually did. Or if he did get the nomination, he would be at a huge disadvantage in the general election (which is what actually happened to McCain... AND Romney... and it has probably already sunk Chris Christie (who is no slouch in the partisanship game himself)... and I already see it starting to happen to Jeb Bush.)

 

And I guess I probably just pushed this over the line where I have to move it to Issues and Politics... though it was already leaning heavily in that direction anyway. Just a helpful hint for the future (to the original poster), if you post a list of people that have "D"s and "R"s next to their name, it probably does not belong in the open program discussion section.

[packsaddle]

I agree. Doesn't seem to have a program component. I think the premise is flawed. Those representatives are individuals who, in their own minds, may already meet the challenge in the OP.

[JoeBob]

 

Until fairly recently government was carried out, in general, without nearly as much polarization and bitterness and demonization of the other side that we see today. There has always been partisanship, but the parties were at least talking to each other. Senators would debate a bill on one side or the other and go out for a drink together afterward.

 

Is this behavior a natural distillation of our democracy? Have the two parties been around just long enough to despise each other?

 

Or is this a result of modern electronic communication? In particular, the 24 hour news cycle of cable and the internet?

 

Being a pro-choice conservative is lonely. I yearn for an open-minded political affiliation.

[Stosh]

Then there's always a political party that could arise out of nowhere and take over breaking the deadlock imposed by two entrenched parties. Republicans came out of nowhere and broke the deadlock on slavery and the abuses that institution produced. Of course the ensuing war was no picnic either. It forever changed the format of the US political scene and perpetuated started the encroachment on the US Constitution all at the same time.

 

Stosh

[wdfa89]

 

 

...until fairly recently government was carried out, in general, without nearly as much polarization and bitterness and demonization of the other side that we see today.

 

I would disagree. If you read about the campaigns (for ex Adams v. Jefferson in 1802) of the 1800s you might find today's politicians would be considered pikers by the standards of indecency displayed. Shoot we fought a civil war, cant get much more divided than that.

[walk in the woods]

 

You know' date=' try and actually simply be "Trustworthy", and to have the "Courage" to stand against the party when you really know they are misguided [/quote']

 

Well, I suppose one might argue that the role of a representative is to courageously represent his constituents and be trustworthy in voting the way they would desire.

[NJCubScouter]

wdfa89, you make a good point, I guess I was speaking a little too generically. I am really speaking of more recent years - say the past 100 years. And I am sure you can find examples of partisan bitterness in those years as well. But I am talking about an overall trend. I don't think it can be denied that the partisan/ideological divide today is much more serious, bitter and potentially dangerous, than it was in (say) the 1950's and 60's. I think there used to be more of a general sense that "we're all Americans," that doesn't exist as much today. Today I think there is more of a sense of "if you don't agree with me, you're not really an American."

[LeCastor]

This is interesting. When Scott Walker was elected governor of Wisconsin I wrote him a letter asking him to uphold the values of Scouting. (He's an Eagle Scout.). He never wrote me back!

 

Eagle Scouts are human. We all have flaws and politics is a game. I can't get too worked up about it.

[NJCubScouter]

Then there's always a political party that could arise out of nowhere and take over breaking the deadlock imposed by two entrenched parties. Republicans came out of nowhere and broke the deadlock on slavery and the abuses that institution produced. Of course the ensuing war was no picnic either. It forever changed the format of the US political scene and perpetuated started the encroachment on the US Constitution all at the same time.

 

The way our government is set up under the Constitution makes it unlikely that a new party could come out of nowhere and take over. And without getting into the entire history of the pre-Civil War period, it's not really accurate to say the Republican Party "came out of nowhere." A large part of the story was the breakup of the Whig Party into northern and southern factions which meant the party could not really compete on a national level. The southern Whigs basically became Democrats and the northern Whigs (including some who had left politics for awhile as the party was breaking up, and I think Abraham Lincoln was one of them) joined with some smaller anti-slavery and anti-expansion-of-slavery parties to form the Republicans.

 

If a new major party were to form today, I think it would have to be the result of something similar - the breakup of one of the existing parties. If I had to guess, it would probably be the Republican party breaking up into a more conservative party and a less conservative party. But again, it's not likely to happen because the most likely result of such a split would be that the Democrats would get elected to everything. That's because we have a "winner take all" system for both the presidency and seats in Congress. We could have a system like Israel does, where there are 30-something parties and there are new parties, merged parties and de-merged parties at every election, but I don't think most people would like it.

 

[skeptic]

At least in regard to the Presidential election, the best answer to the electora college would seem to simply be to give the electoral votes in proportion to the actual votes, rather than winner take all. That has never made any sense to me. But, politics and politicians have seldom made much sense either.

 

[SeattlePioneer]

Is it wrong to lie?

 

 

For private individuals, it's usually a bad and disreputable practice.

 

But it's very common among politicians. Why?

 

 

Lots of reasons. Sometimes the truth just wont serve. Telling the truth may promote conflict.

 

The truth about what is going on in politics is a valuable commodity. You think you should get it for free? Good luck!

 

 

The stakes of what happens in government can be enormous. Telling lies might be seen as worthwhile to get desired policies.

 

Just as an example ---

 

In 1965 the United States revised immigration laws which have resulted in massive changes in the population of the United States.

 

Advocates of those changes denied that they would have any such effect. Did they lie about that? If they did lie, were they justified in lying to get what they got?

 

 

Personal ethics and the ethics of politics seem to me to often be quite distinct.

 

 

In short, the Scout Oath and Law are fine ideals for individuals, but they aren't adequate to govern the behavior of politicians in government.