In a Failing Government Structure the Incumbents Always Lose

After years of the majority of Americans being dissatisfied with the Bush administration and its policies, both foreign and domestic, the historic election of Barack Obama in November 2008 seemed like a breath of fresh air to many Americans. Certainly, with such a major shift away from the standard presidential candidate, we expected to see and feel positive change in the way the federal government operates. Yet nearly two full years into Obama's first term and with a Democratic majority in the House and Senate, things seem increasingly unsettled and just as many Americans seem upset about the Obama administration as the previous one.

It doesn't take a savvy political analyst to understand that the problem is not with the Obama administration or the Bush administration. The problem is with the structure and machinations of the U.S. government as a whole. Rest assured, the core values and original vision of the U.S. government as constructed by the Founding Fathers are sufficient to serve as the foundation for successful governance, with some obvious exceptions.

But as that original structure has grown, morphed and expanded its reach into every aspect of our lives, it's becoming more and more clear that the system itself is what is in need of change. And politicians, in their current form, are unable to effect real change in government. The reasons for that are complex in some ways, but to simplify them is to say that changing the current system means taking away the vast majority of the advantages of the politicians required to make the change in the first place. In short, in order for real change to occur, politicians will have to vote against themselves and their own personal prosperity - and it's unreasonable for us to expect that to happen.

Government in the United States - at the local, state and federal levels - is stagnant. The policies and the programs that are in place are generally wasteful and poorly managed. It has become accepted and even expected practice for government agencies to bloat and become wholly inefficient. For the general public, dealing with government agencies is always difficult and unnecessarily illogical, yet the vast majority of us simply accept that as being the way things are.

Because few political offices hold term limits - and term limits are practically non-existent at the legislative level - our government is fraught with career politicians. When the structure of the U.S. government was initially designed and debated, it was done so without a true understanding of what could happen when lawmakers are allowed to hold office for the majority of their lives. Even though legislative positions at all levels do not hold the prestige and recognition of executive level positions in government, the power that comes with them is at least as functional, if not more so. As a result, career politicians at the federal legislative level end up creating relationships with organizations, groups and individuals who are trying to advance specific pieces of legislation or who are opposed to other specific pieces of legislation. In exchange for their support, lawmakers are often rewarded financially in the form of campaign contributions and other perks, which help to ensure that they will remain in office after the following term's elections.

In recent decades, we've seen the government become much more self-serving and the vortex that has been created by the endless cycle of government growth funded by American taxpayers and incalculable foreign debt must be fed in order to survive. The term "too big to fail" is essentially the perfect description of the U.S. government, although it is likely that something is going to fundamentally break down within the next decade that will force change in a way that does not involve operating within the current government structure.