Most Americans are somewhere in the middle on a lot of the ideas that have infused our recent elections. There was no great ground swell of public support for huge tax cuts. There are no hordes in the street demanding that we go to war against the heathen masses of the globe. There is no budding uprising if we don't cease to help the underprivileged. Why is it, then, that the people elected don't seem to share our average views? Why is it that our politics seem so much more extreme than our voters?
There are psychological reasons played upon by marketers and there is ignorance and naivete, but mostly this is a tactical question, one of electoral infrastructure. Congressional and other districts have lately been drawn so that a substantial majority of the district voters agree with one party or the other. For the parties to create "safe" seats, we get districts so polarized they no longer reflect the populace.
Such gerrymandered districts allow candidates to take extreme positions with impunity. This will still create an average collective legislative view but it is an average of endpoints, not the national bell curve. A slight shift in party power then creates a huge shift in legislative direction. The nation is not so schizophrenic, yet we end up with representatives at war with each other and at odds with the people.
Redistricting has always been political, but recently it has become corruptly so. Both sides are to blame for lopsided districts that elect lopsided politicians. Gone are competitive seats that force candidates to really think about what the other side has to say. And what the people want. Because incumbent politicians want to remain so, it is unlikely we'll see this change any time soon. Or is it?
We know there is significant displeasure among the electorate. It doesn't always find voice but it is there beneath the surface of every election. It shows itself in lowered turnout, but it also boiled over briefly with the term limits movement. Campaign finance has a similar energy. These efforts fail to ease the malaise, however, so the unrest is still around.
Unlike some of the other, thorny issues of the day, redistricting has a handy solution. Not all electoral units are politically redrawn every census so they serve as examples: The Senate doesn't suffer these problems and does not show as severe dysfunction. Senate seats are elected statewide, meaning the long-term character of the state is born out through the statistical wash of a broad-based election. To reflect a similar sanity, we could mandate that other districts be drawn to reflect the demographic character of their states. Gerrymander all you want but at the end of the day, representatives will be forced to truly represent their constituencies and will therefore be more amenable to compromise, not confrontation. They'll be less able to feed off red-meat issues while quietly catering to the powerful. They'll have to fight for votes, think like voters, lead even, but only where we'll wittingly follow.
It all sounds too good, utopian even. But if we can save pregnant pigs, we can save our electoral system.
-- Paul Swider, St. Petersburg
We need a truly representative party
Re: House divided.
Your recent article, which centered on the open hostility now being displayed in the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate by both political parties toward each other, touches upon what I consider to be something seriously lacking in our government structure.
Majority or minority, there is something very wrong when both parties have to resort to trickery to get U.S. judges appointed to the bench.
It seems no matter whom you elect, it is not long before they are glued to their parties' fantails and care not for the good of their constituents.
The only solution that I can see is to create a third party that truly represents those who elect them.
Right now the Democrats are totally consumed with hatred of President Bush, guns and tax breaks, while the Republicans worry about big business, religious mottoes and abortion.
Guess what? Nothing has changed in 50 years. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
It is time for politicians to worry about Americans. Every one of us by this time should have all the basics, that is, food, clothing, shelter and safety.
The Hollywood image of a politician is far less important to America than a child being hungry, or a elderly person going without his or her medication.
Shame on those that play games with our lives.
-- Guy Nash, St. Petersburg
Skip the ads, just have debates
I've carefully watched the president on his recent campaign and TV appearances, including his press conference and his bold commentary with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon last week. And then I watched Sen. John Kerry address the students, faculty and residents of the area at New York University.
I have but one suggestion that will give the American voters exactly what they want. Let's forgo the B.S. of the multimillion dollar negative campaign ads and just let the debate begin. Two candidates face to face without scripts, in the style of Lincoln and Douglas. Then the public will truly be capable of making informed choices, without misinformation, distortion, lies and negativism.
Come on, guys, get it on in the true American spirit. Let's see who really has the plans, programs, solutions and the guts to go mano a mano.
-- Ernie Bach, Largo
People want naturopathic medicine
Re: Leave well enough alone.
The April 13 editorial opposing the restoration of a licensing process for naturopathic doctors was extremely biased. Clearly the editorial position was informed primarily by the Florida Medical Association, the voice of organized conventional medicine.
Yes, licensing was suspended in 1959, but the notion that this action was motivated by incompetence or malpractice on the part of naturopathic physicians is absurd. The action was, in large part, the result of organized medicine's determination to drive competition out of the health care marketplace.
The practice of naturopathic medicine remains in Florida and the demand for its continued practice is growing. For example, the Silver Haired Legislature made the passage of legislation to re-establish a licensure (HB 1375 and SB 2604) its No. 1 legislative priority for the 2004 legislative session.
The practice of naturopathic medicine focuses on supporting the body's natural ability to heal itself by using the least invasive natural therapies available rather than relying on conventional medicine's standard treatments: surgery and potent drugs.
And if malpractice is the issue, then acknowledge that the doctors who cut off the wrong limb, or abuse their prescription rights, or overmedicate patients all have M.D. after their names. Naturopathic physicians practice a lower risk medicine that engages the patient in their health care to produce good health and high patient satisfaction. Their much lower malpractice insurance premiums are the "proof of that pudding."
Graduates of naturopathic medical colleges (and there are hundreds of them who want to come to Florida) complete a four-year medical curriculum that focuses on the same basic medical sciences as conventional medical curriculums during years one and two. Likewise, years three and four are devoted to intensive clinical training and practice with special attention paid to the natural healing emphasis that distinguishes the medicine. The notion that naturopathic doctors are poorly trained (along with the suggestion that this legislation opens the door to poorly trained foreign doctors) is just more of conventional medicine's propaganda designed to limit competition and deny freedom of choice.
As a health care consumer, I want naturopathic medicine. For me the bottom line is, "Why can't I have the freedom to choose the medicine I want?"
-- Marvin D. Kelly, Winter Springs
Too many are not well enough
Re: Leave well enough alone.
The underlying premise of your editorial has no basis in fact or reason. There is no evidence that patients of conventional medicine - the M.D.s, pharmaceutical companies and mainstream hospitals - are "well enough."
There is substantial evidence far too many patients are not "well enough." Many of them are not "well" at all. In addition, tens of thousands die as a result of the traditions, arrogance, institutional bias, greed and negligence of the conventional health care axis: M.D.s, drug and insurance companies.
It may be appropriate to debate the scope of practice - which drugs should naturopathic physicians be authorized to prescribe or surgeries to perform. That depends on the educational and licensing requirements. Any legislation can be improved. Nevertheless, to suggest that there should be no standards for training or licensing naturopathic health care providers is to turn a blind eye to fraudulent practices by the untrained and unskilled.
The major health problem of this generation - a complex of related chronic conditions made up of some combination of obesity, diabetes, depression, mental decline, insulin resistance, osteoporosis, arthritis and heart disease - is primarily the result of dramatic shifts in the eating habits of Americans over the past 50 years. Is it unreasonable to infer that a remedy might be found in nutritional treatments - diet, exercise and supplements?
The vast majority of the time, conventional M.D.s treat these conditions with high-priced patented medicines. Most conventional doctors do not consider nutritional treatments, natural hormone replacement therapy, or various supplements that, either alone or in combination with conventional treatment, would dramatically improve outcomes and lower risk of horrendous side effects.
Science based nutritional medicine has the ability not only to relieve symptoms, but also to "cure" underlying causes of those symptoms.
My sole interest is as a consumer of health care services. After a seven-year trial period and "against medical advice" of three M.D.s, I discontinued seven patented medications. Assisted by nutritional protocols and treatment with natural supplements, the results have been outstanding.
I travel to Seattle, Wash., to obtain the services of a licensed naturopathic physician. That should not be necessary.
-- Robert K. Baker, Englewood
Our fuel pain is self-inflicted
Re: Public can help influence price of gas, letter, April 15.
This letter has some good suggestions, albeit a short list. There are many more good suggestions and to list just a few:
Americans feeling the pain at the pump need to understand that much of the pain is self-inflicted. Environmentalists in particular, need to recognize that we have not been allowed to build a single new refinery in our country in more than 20 years! Our "clean air people" also need to fess up to the mess they have created with all the different state regulations and restrictions on gasoline blend. Did you know that there is a refinery in Springfield, Ill., that cannot ship gas to Chicago because the formulas in those areas are different?
We need to understand that our problems have been compounded by a domestic policy that inhibits supply by putting some sources of oil off-limits. As an example take the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the Rocky Mountains, the Gulf of Mexico and other offshore sites.
We like to blame the Saudis for not having a pro-U.S. oil policy, but we don't have one ourselves.
-- Sam Lasley, Clearwater
Share your opinions
We invite readers to write to us. Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by fax to 727 893-8675 or through our Web site at: http://www.sptimes.com/letters/
They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.
Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.
