Advice (and Consent)

I am convinced that most people want to do well, be well, and be thought well of.  Unless they feel powerless by past experience of personal failure(s) and have become inured (dictionary definition: ‘to accustom to accept something undesirable’), hope does spring eternal.  It is fostered by encouragement and given life by example of those who seem to know what they are talking about.  Heroes, celebrities or highly accomplished individuals seem to be walking testimonials that motivate one so lacking to action. 

 

Hence, people seem to be drawn to advice columns in newspapers, are persuaded by ‘testimonials’ in advertisements—especially by famous people, and listen to those who otherwise seem credible.  This is why ‘quote books’ perpetually seem to sell, as do birthday cards, and medicinal remedies, and why people attend lectures.  And it is why this author gives as much advice through weblog posting as he does. 

 

Advice is sought and consent to follow the advice is sometimes followed. 

 

Interestingly the term ‘advice and consent’ is found in The United States Constitution regarding the Senate’s role in ratifying treaties and appointments.  The assumption is that those giving ‘advice’ are also better qualified to ‘consent’ to an action that is proposed—or at least that a body of democratically elected representatives of the people should be heard and have at least as much power as the executive proposing the matter. 

  

I find it interesting that in the British Parliament bills are given the following heading: “BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:”

I don’t think it would hurt if our political leaders considered the ‘advice’ of the equivalent of ‘Lord’s spiritual’ in the weighty challenges facing our nation.

I find it revealing that the sitting President of the United States (as witnessed by the ‘State of the Union’ address earlier this week) showed precious little consideration for the principles of the construction of our government—its checks and balances--by his assertive stance on taking unilateral ‘executive action’ on any number of issues he feels are not going his way.  He certainly does not seem to want ‘advice’ by Congress or the American people or our nation’s ‘spiritual leaders’ (check his current polling ratings).  Not all of our former presidents were so cavalier.

I seem to remember our founding documents expressing the notion of “we the people” instead of “I the President.”  A word count in the President’s addresses of “I” and “my” as contrasted to “we and our” would also be revealing. 

 

No, I believe that if this nation is to survive and deal appropriately with the unending challenges it faces, it needs to be ‘of the people’ and ‘one nation under God,’ and not just under a sitting president.