Cal Thomas: Justin Amash not a ‘total loser’ | TribLIVE.com
Featured Commentary

Cal Thomas: Justin Amash not a ‘total loser’

Cal Thomas
1386007_web1_1373806-7c65d9d67ba041d2b1445e64e7e8c936
Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., listens to debate during a House Oversight and Reform Committee session June 12.

Rep. Justin Amash has left the Republican Party and will now represent Michigan’s third congressional district as an independent. In a Washington Post op-ed, he wrote: “I’ve become disenchanted with party politics and frightened by what I see from it. The two-party system has evolved into an existential threat to American principles and institutions.”

Responding to Amash’s announcement, President Trump called him “a total loser” who was unlikely to win a primary election next year against a Republican challenger.

No one is a total loser and some of Amash’s concerns ought to be of interest to more of us. The parties are as divided as ever. Reelection seems to be the primary goal of many in Congress, along with nonstop fundraising.

The Founders never intended politics to become a career. They were farmers, lawyers, businesspeople and average citizens who saw service to their country as a duty and a privilege, not a lifestyle. Most returned home to their real jobs after serving the nation for a brief time. Many of today’s politicians serve for decades with no real connection to the people they were elected to serve.

Instead of clashes between parties whose interests do not promote the general welfare but instead appear mostly self-serving, candidates should debate which ideas have a proven track record of working, no matter their party of origin.

Our 30th president, Calvin Coolidge, had abundant wisdom on numerous subjects. Horse, or common sense, they called it.

About taxes, which today’s Democratic presidential candidates believe are not high enough, Coolidge said, “I want taxes to be less, that the people might have more,” and “The collection of any taxes which are not absolutely required, which do not beyond reasonable doubt contribute to the public welfare, is only a species of legalized larceny” and “The wise and correct course to follow in taxation is not to destroy those who have already secured success, but to create conditions under which everyone will have a better chance to be successful.” Copy to Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

Coolidge also said you don’t help build up the weak by tearing down the strong. Copy to all Democrats.

In his op-ed, Amash writes of partisanship: “These are consequences of a mindset among the political class that loyalty to party is more important than serving the American people or protecting our governing institutions. The parties value winning for its own sake, and at whatever cost. … In this hyper-partisan environment, congressional leaders use every tool to compel party members to stick with the team, dangling chairmanships, committee assignments, bill sponsorships, endorsements and campaign resources. As donors recognize the growing power of party leaders, they supply these officials with ever-increasing funds, which, in turn, further tightens their grip on power.”

He is right, but who is most at fault? Isn’t it the people who vote for and allow them to stay beyond their “sell-by” date, corrupted by money and power? Too many voters are also compromised by what they get from government.

Amash may not win reelection, but his critique of the dangers of extreme partisanship, where no idea from “the other side” should be considered valid, ought to be taken seriously. We have a history of ideas that worked and failed. We should reconsider the ones that worked and reject the ones that didn’t.

Winning the battle of ideas ought to be paramount, not just beating members of the other party. Coolidge, a total winner, would approve.

Cal Thomas is a syndicated columnist.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.