Pointless Comparisons

There’s a motivational parable out there that I recently read for the first time:

This is a story of four people named Everybody, Somebody, Anybody and Nobody.

There was an important job to be done and Everybody was sure Somebody would do it.

Anybody could have done it but Nobody did it.

Somebody got angry with that because it was Everybody’s job.

Everybody thought Anybody could do it but Nobody realized that Everybody wouldn’t do it.

It ended that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have done.

To this date these four people are still arguing why Nobodydid the job.

The parable made me think of recent headlines heralding the relative unpopularity of the United States Congress. Apparently the legislative branch of the United States federal government is quite unpopular and someone thought it would be of some utility to compare its favorability to all sorts of supposed undesirables.  The comparison and its results are pointless to share because it is utterly useless. It doesn’t matter one bit how unpopular the US Congress is so long as it remains relatively unchanged. And the composition of the US Congress, most specifically the House of Representatives will not change so long as there are no term limits and gerrymandered districts exist, resulting in many hyper-compartmentalized districts that elect representatives that stand for incredibly precise interests that are almost always in contradiction to the general interests of the country at large.

Just about every Representative is elected by promising their constituents that someone else can, should and is responsible for paying for the things that they want provided for by the federal government. Those who are successful at convincing their respective electorate that they can or have benefited them directly by getting someone else to pay for those things are rewarded handsomely through perpetual re-election. The most successful Representatives have so much power in incumbency that they don’t even have to bother with campaigning for re-election and enjoy Saddam Hussein levels of approval. These representatives, and there are more of them every election cycle, couldn’t care less about congress’ aggregate approval rating because it matters not one bit towards their own.

As the federal government regulates more and more of everyday life by passing more and more laws they become more of a national government hyper-regulating every aspect of daily life for erstwhile citizens. With this comes less and less of the notion of state sovereignty. This hyper-regulation does little for the very real differences in priority at the state level affecting the national reputation of the entire Congress, and for Representatives and Senators alike. That national reputation, however, matters little so long as the local reputation of these politicians remains strong.

There’s a reason the founders established a limited federal government with unenumerated powers reserved for the states, it’s because in a country as large and diverse as the United States it is impossible to accurately and fairly represent everyone’s interests at the national level. Attempts to so through hyper-regulation and one-size-fits-all federal government only exacerbate differences in this country and necessarily elevate some differences at the explicit expense of others. That is why limited federal government is important. It can’t be expected for enough voters to comprehend this reality so long as they allow themselves to be fooled into believing that politicians can give them something for nothing because someone else will pay for it. Showing that the Congress is less popular than some silly celebrity won’t change our current reality and bloated government, through popular elections we get the government we deserve.