What About "States' Rights" and "Drill, Baby, Drill!!" Now?

As hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil spill into the Gulf of Mexico, I am struck by the conversion of two issues: States' Rights and the Energy Crisis. States' Rights and the reach of the Federal Government. Right now, there isn't one person on either side of the aisle that doesn't wish the Federal Government didn't already have some kind of solution to stopping the BP oil spill. During the 2008 Presidential Election, there was an anthem coming out of conservative talking heads when addressing the looming energy crisis, Drill, Baby, Drill! Often some of these same people will argue against Federal Government intervention in State issues.

Ironically, we stand today at the crossroads of both of those conservative talking points. State's Rights vs. Federal Power and Off-Shore Drilling vs. Alternative Energy Sources. The well that is currently painting the Gulf black was drilled within the last three years and, as hearings just a few weeks ago that included all parties involved in the oversight of this well proved, done with more concern for the financial bottom line than for safety regulations. These same people said in 2008 that the answer to the U.S. energy crisis was for Oil companies to be able to drill anywhere they could find oil in the country, without constraint, and the drilling would be done safely and efficiently. I believe it would be difficult for anyone to argue at this point that this idea has born the fruit once promised.

Meanwhile, as the worst oil spill in this nation's history continues on for the 38th day, I don't hear anyone talking about States' Rights. Where are the people arguing that this is an issue that the states of Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama and Florida can handle without "Big Brother" Federal Government dipping its nose where it doesn't belong? Where are the people (like the Tea Partiers) screaming about the burden of taxes and how they could be better used by the average citizen than by the Federal Government? It would be quite a sight to have private citizens from the Gulf States working together in the Gulf to cap the ruptured well spilling oil in their waters, but that sight would be an even more tragic one than what we see everyday at this moment.

All of this being said, I do believe that States' Rights has an important place in this country's Democratic Republic. Still, I also believe that before state's can truly claim to have the ability to handle most of their affairs, as some might claim, those same states must do more to bring more of its citizens into the governing process so that Citizens' Rights serve as the foundation for States' Rights and States' Rights serve as the foundation for Federal Rights.

When citizens are consistently and vigilantly involved in the governing processes of their communities and states, decisions about what to do about national issues like the energy crisis are so easily dominated by status quo entities such as the oil and coal (don't forget about the mine collapse a few weeks ago, leading to the death of several miners) companies. Constant citizen engagement makes sure that companies are doing everything possible to secure the safety of their workers and in the production of its goods.  Perhaps recent events should inspire a new idea, "Engage, Baby, Engage!"

Real "Change"

Today, after the Mid-Term Election version of "Super Tuesday", the words coming out of the talking heads are "anti incumbent" and "change". In 2008 similar words were thrown around with equal frequency. Long-time Republican/Democrat Senator Arlen Specter (PA) was defeated by the "change" candidate Joe Sestak. Incumbent Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln (D) is now in a run-off with the "anti establishment" candidate Bill Halter. Rand Paul (son of former Presidential Candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R - TX)) defeated the Republican establishment candidate Trey Grayson.

All across the country, a wave of "change" swept primaries from Connecticut to Louisiana. Still, I have one question: "Change" what? Most people who hold elected office were brought to office, because they at the time of their initial election, they represented change of some sort, whether it be fiscal responsibility, increasing jobs, improving education, being a "person of the people" or some other reform rhetoric. However, all of these once "agents of change" eventually become the establishment and then, of course, it's time for that "establishment" person to go, because establishment = corruption.

Over the decades, the voters have changed their elected representatives many times over, the country has changed political parties of preferences just as many times, but there is one thing that hasn't changed, the voters. Voters for a very long time have fallen into one of three categories: angry, subdued or negligent. Angry voters want anything other than what currently exists in their respective government. Subdued voters are the ones benefitting from the current system of their respective government. Negligent voters have completely checked out of the process and only get involved once they become angry voters.

There needs to be another category: Engaged. Engaged voters may become angry, but they are never negligent or subdued, because there is too much going on in the communities, cities, counties, states and nation around them to be content or decide to fall out of the process. Engaged voters both go to their representatives and make their representatives come to them because they are informed about the issues, how they as voters can effect the issues and what their representatives are doing about the issues.

Because of the fact that our country is founded on the democratic republic form of government, the government is a direct mirror of the people. The people lack awareness, engagement and vigilance, and this results in a government that doesn't listen or represent its people. Until there is a shift in that dynamic, the faces may change, but the real problem remains the same.