My representative doesn't represent me

I live in a congressional district represented by Douglas Lamborn.  In my opinion, he's a dangerous ideologue who doesn't understand the first thing about representative democracy, but, hey, what do I know?  As Jefferson said,  let facts be submitted to a candid world. 

I receive occasional messages by email from Rep. Lamborn's office.  Today's documented an interview he held with our local newspaper, the Gazette.  An exerpt:

The Gazette:Budget talks have been the only thing coming out of Washington for weeks now. So along those lines, what’s happening that you specifically think voters around here should know about?
Lamborn:The big news today is that we got together as (House) Republicans this morning, and we have a deal that we think is a great deal to move forward with, and that we can unify behind. And that’s the first time in this whole debate that we’ve really reached this point. And I’m excited about the plan. It’s cut, cap and balance. In the short term, we cut next year’s budget by $111 billion. Some of that is discretionary, some of that is mandatory. In the medium term, in the next 10 years, we cut from our current spending — the current budget is about 24 percent of gross domestic product — to under 20 percent of GDP, with an eventual path to get down, someday, to 18 percent. To me, the sooner the better. And then in the long term, have a balanced budget amendment that goes out to the states. I’m hopeful that enough states would ratify it to put this in the Constitution, so that on a permanent basis, we can’t overspend. Those are the main provisions.   [my emphasis]

 So let's see.  A constitutional amendment that requires, like say, California, that the budget not exceed revenue.  Then, some perverse congress, like the one we have now, that refuses to consider raising taxes just because it has some religious significance for them, can paralyze the entire apparatus of government.  That's working so great for the states!  What a tool!

How the Left killed civil discourse

This morning I heard Cokie Roberts describing her impending appointment to deliver a eulogy for Betty Ford.  Apparently Betty Ford had requested that, when the opportunity came, she speak about the time when Gerry Ford and Hale Boggs (Cokie Roberts' father) were House Minority Leader and Majority Leader, respectively, and House members were collegial and even friends, irrespective of party (united, perhaps, by their common loathing of the Senate).  Later on I read an article in The Nation extolling the courage  and civic virtue of "...all those gay couples who were willing to weaponize their lives...'you're either with me, or you're with the haters - but you can't have it both ways'".

That's it, of course.  You (we) can't have it both ways.  When Boggs and Ford were friends, discourse in the Congress was about compromise and continuity.  Change was gradual, what we might call "adiabatic".  Everyone's position was respectable.  Then there was the Vietnam War, and the Civil Rights Movement.  It was my side, the Left, that saw that gradual change meant more lynchings and more body bags.  It was we who said the other side's argument was totally bankrupt.  And it worked.  Great googlymoogly, it worked a treat!

Of course, THEY were watching.  They saw that it worked.  And whose fault is it that they're even better at it than we are?  So here we are.  There is no middle ground.  An argument is either right or wrong and if it's wrong, what's respectable about that?  You can't have it both ways.