The left, of course, is right.

The right wing believes that Upton, despite his aggressive pursuit of the Republican leadership priorities, is, at his political core, not one of them, never will be one of them, and therefore cannot be counted on to preach or practice their interpretation of conservative dogma.

And they, of course, are right, too.

So there is Fred Upton in the middle where he has always been, maintaining independent thought and action, adhering to principles, doing what he has always tried to do—govern.

When my colleagues at the Congressional Institute and I wrote our handbook for congressional staff called Surviving Congress, we concluded that, from the beginning of our Republic, a member of the House of Representatives, has had just two basic responsibilities:

1) To serve the common good of the nation by reflecting the interests and beliefs of a majority of his/her constituents; and

2) To serve the interests of the congressional district by meeting the individual and collective needs of the constituency, serving as their advocate before the Federal Government.

One of the first soul-searching questions a new member of Congress must ask is how to best fulfill those responsibilities. Is he/she in Congress to participate in the process of governing the country or simply to advocate a philosophy of governing, and leave the actual work of governance to others?

Those who cling to either end of the spectrum—right or left–don’t like Upton because he is dedicated to the former and not the latter. Upton came to Washington to govern, to get things done, to make himself an agent of change, not just an advocate for it. To those who espouse a more puritanical, doctrinaire democracy – – there’s nothing wrong with that — the Upton approach is incompatible.

The current ideological rigidity, which is fomented, strengthened and exaggerated by excessive media attention, makes finding solutions and reaching consensus – governing, that is — very difficult. Any legislator who tries by applying a semblance of common sense, or engaging in nonconventional, less dogmatic thinking, subjects himself or herself to ridicule and retaliation.

Upton is even more vulnerable to outside attack than others because he represents a district that is not safely Republican. Upton’s approach to his work is of integral value to our legislative process and our system of government. He gives them an element of diversity and distinction that is essential to any representative form of government. In the end, however, it is only the judgment of his constituents that will really matter, and the people of Western Michigan seem more inclined toward a government that is productive rather than one that is polarized.

Random Thought: Bypassing Congress Is Bypassing Constitution

“Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Lord Acton.

President Obama seems like he’s pretty much given up on trying to govern and has launched into full-time re-election mode. Late in October, the Administration unveiled yet another campaign strategy; this one called “We Can’t Wait.” The President declared On October 24: “We can’t wait for an increasingly dysfunctional Congress to do its job. Where they won’t act, I will.”

That bravado may sound good, but it can be dangerous and irresponsible. Among the tactics the Administration is using is the executive order. The President has issued several executive orders during his tenure, but more recently he has abused the procedure, changing the nature of the executive order to bypass Congress on issues such as prescription drugs, refinancing mortgage payments and student loans. The Obama Administration has also gone on a regulation spree, imposing game-changing and economically debilitating regulations on everything from consumer credit to farm dust.

To those Americans starved for decision-making in Washington, the new Re-elect Obama Strategy may have some appeal. In desperation, you could reason that somebody’s got to govern. It may as well be him going it alone. But be careful what you ask for. Presidents throughout history, from John Adams through George Bush, have tried to extend the power of the Presidency beyond its Constitutional limits, producing unintended consequences and setting dangerous precedents.  In most cases the results have demonstrated once again why the Founding Fathers created checks and balances, why they looked to Congress as the first branch of government, why they rejected the idea of a new monarchy and why they tried to protect the citizenry against an overbearing, autocratic executive. No amount of gridlock, no degree of desperation over what is going on in Washington should give cause for any citizen to tolerate or excuse unilateral, dictatorial action by their President.

Random Thought: Kim Kardashian’s Future

Kim Kardashian made $18 million off a wedding that lasted 72 days. I’d like to nominate her for Secretary of the Treasury.

Random Thought: Quotations

“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.”
Albert Einstein

“The man who insists upon seeing with perfect clearness before he decides, never decides.  Accept life, and you must accept regret.”
Henri Frederic Amiel, Swedish philosopher

“A gossip is one who talks to you about others; a bore is one who talks to you about himself; and a brilliant conversationalist is one who talks to you about yourself.”
Lisa Kirk, actress

Editor’s Note: Mike Johnson is a former journalist, who worked on the Ford White House staff and served as press secretary and chief of staff to House Republican Leader Bob Michel, prior to entering the private sector. He is co-author of a book, Surviving Congress, a guide for congressional staff. He is currently a principal with the OB-C Group.