Outsourcing Similarities
Every serious service provider agrees to complete his or her assignments according to client-directed specifications. In a way, politicians also agree to complete assignments, of sorts, based on the platform in which they were elected.
Additionally, when a politician is elected, he takes an oath of office that’s supposed to assure his constituents he will perform the job he was not only asked to do, but what he campaigned to do. A politician essentially acts on a verbal agreement to govern according to the will of the people, which makes it appropriate, therefore, to hold politicians to the same standards that we hold independent contractors.
But we don’t.
Outsourcing Differences
When a service provider is hired to do a job, she signs a contract that’s supposed to assure her clients she will perform the job she was not only asked to do, much like the politician, but what she promised to do as well.
What unquestionably differentiates the service provider from the politician, however, is the unfortunate reality that politicians are generally not held accountable for unethical behavior the way service providers are. The reality is that many politicians get away with misleading the public for years and years and years — all due to disregarding what makes an agreement, an agreement:
- Respecting the validity of an agreement in a court of law, whether that agreement is in writing or verbal.
- Defining which services will be compensated and how they will be compensated.
- Using milestones to verify promises are delivered when they said they would be.
- Affirming the quality and timeliness of deliverables, and taking appropriate, defined action when they’re not.
- Identifying an impartial, 3rd party for dispute resolution.
The AARP‘s “Agreement” commercial sums up the discord between this accountability quite succinctly.
We Outsource Our Government
There are certainly a sizeable number of cases in which politicians were actually held accountable for their actions. And legal entities, whose job is to hold politicians accountable, actually exist. The problem is that unless a politician indulges in outright political corruption, we’re stuck with officials behaving on their personal interpretation of constitutional law, rather than what was said and/or implied in their campaigns.
Whether Federal-based or State-based, the constitution is, historically, one of the most ambiguously written contracts between the government and its people. And our politicians take advantage of that.
As outsourcers, that is — as constituents who unsuccessfully outsourced the sufficient and appropriate governing of society to hired politicos — we’re being duped, swindled, and hoodwinked. The verbal agreement has been broken, and we don’t even have access to the tools required to enforce promises.
Questions to Ask
September 26, 2011, President Obama asked the Congressional Black Caucus (CBS) to “Stop complaining, stop grumbling, stop crying” about political abuse. Though he asked all Americans (I presume) to march with him in his fight against Washington’s perversions of the law, we have to ask ourselves when we will finally hold politicians accountable.
We have to ask ourselves when we will finally demand that politicians follow through on their campaign promises (i.e. contracted, verbal agreement) and stop misleading their employers (i.e. us). We have to ask ourselves , “If we are forced to uphold our end of the political, verbal agreement via taxes and law-abiding behavior, why do politicians get a pass, and how do we stop it?”
The answers may not be easy to get to, but at least the right questions will have been asked.
