Bishop, Altschuler & The Virtues Of A Representative Republic

New York’s 1st congressional district, which includes the majority of Smithtown, has become a topic of national debate with respect to the upcoming elections. This large swath of land, encompassing Eastern Long Island, is presently being recognized as a bellwether district with regard to suburban America. Incumbent Democrat Timothy Bishop of Southampton will be running against successful businessman Randy Altschuler of St. James in what will surely be a hotly contested election. For Suffolk County’s electorate to properly discern the candidate who will best represent its interests, three primary questions must be answered. 1) What is the role of a United States Congressman? 2) What kind of character and what general intention is representative of each candidate? 3) What political ideology do the respective candidates adhere to and what is their philosophical bent? These questions, once answered, should provide the public with a clear distinction between the candidates and supply the knowledge that is necessary to make an informed decision.

The House of Representatives, as established by the United States Constitution, was considered to be the nucleus of the nascent federal government. This body of lawmakers was intended to act as the American people’s direct link to their government. It is this branch of Congress that was to separate America from the failed democracies of antiquity, thus creating a new form of government, commonly referred to as a “representative republic”. Congressional representatives, elected by the people, were to vote on federal legislation on behalf of the region from which they came. Following the Civil War (1860 – 1865) and the subsequent cohesion of the federal union, the interests of the nation as a whole often proved equal to the sum of its parts. Notwithstanding this interrelation, a Congressman’s primary job was, and still remains, that of voting for the interests of his region.

With regard to the issue of character, Congressman Bishop recently wrote the following in an open letter to his supporters: “I ran for Congress because I care about this community.” I am prone to believe the Congressman due to the recognition that Mr. Bishop is a good and honorable man who casts his votes in Congress according to the dictates of his conscience. Randy Altschuler, who I have met and conversed with on several occasions, is also a good and honorable man who would likewise vote on federal legislation based on his principles and his conscience. I believe that Messrs. Altschuler and Bishop, both well liked and respected men, are equally sincere in their patriotism.

Thus having determined the role of an American Congressman, and having established the sincerity and well-intentioned motives of the candidates, the final stage of scrutiny, with regard to choosing a representative, involves a careful inspection of the candidates’ respective ideologies. In the case of Congressman Bishop, we shall examine his voting record; with respect to Randy Altschuler, as he is new to the political arena, we shall compare his campaign platform to that of Mr. Bishop’s and contrast their principles accordingly.

Because of Timothy Bishop’s voting record, and because we have fairly established that the Congressman votes according to his conscience, we may rightfully infer that Mr. Bishop’s political principles and ideological bent are in direct accord with those of President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Over the course of the past two years, Congressman Bishop has voted in favor of Obama-Care, of cap-and-trade, of all of the President’s spending and “stimulus” initiatives, of the financial “reform” act and of raising the ceiling on America’s national debt. If people are happy with President Obama and with the quality of our present Congress, they will naturally vote to re-elect Timothy Bishop. However, for those malcontent with the social, political and economic shift that America is currently experiencing, a further examination of Mr. Altschuler’s proposed agenda is highly recommended.

Whereas Congressman Bishop apparently believes that government spending and social programs are the necessary tools for fixing our economy, Mr. Altschuler, in contrast, is inclined to consider less federal spending and across the board tax cuts as the path to fiscal redemption. Whereas Mr. Bishop’s inclinations are those of increased government regulation, effectively restructuring our society, Mr. Altschuler believes that less government control and more individual liberty are the roots of American exceptionalism.

On a personal note, I will readily admit that, during his tenure, Congressman Bishop has proven adept at securing federal funds for Suffolk County. That being said, I do not believe that lobbying for money is the proper role of a Congressman. This money, once acquired, must be taken from somewhere else, be it via tax increases, borrowing from foreign nations or passing the buck to future generations. The federal government presently owns what was once a thriving private economy. Our nation’s hope for returning to those former days of prosperity lies in fostering the ingenuity of the people and in giving back the power to the industrious American populace. Tax increases, further debt and more government interference are likely to produce the opposite result. It is this view of government that offers the most striking contrast between these two congressional candidates.

If one is happy with the direction of the country and with the performance of the current Congress, then Tim Bishop is the person to vote for on Election Day. However, if one believes, as I do, that it is up to the people to take back control and to restore the proper balance between government and individual liberty, Randy Altschuler should be the choice for Congress. What is most imperative in this crucial election season is that each and every voting American carefully scrutinizes the candidates who are running for office. For in a representative republic, the innate power of a well informed electorate, and the impact it can have on our nation, should never be underestimated.

Storm On The Horizon

“People of the region should be alert and ready so when the time comes, we can fight our final, decisive battle.” These are the words of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a typical reference to fulfilling his publicly stated goal of annihilating the nation of Israel. On Friday, September 3rd, in a speech attacking America with regard to its recent efforts to mediate a peace between Israel and the Palestinians, Ahmadinejad called on all Muslims to prepare for a final battle to free Jerusalem.

Iran, with the assistance of Russia, China and North Korea, is inching closer to achieving its long sought after goal of weapons-grade nuclear technology. With each step forward in Iran’s nuclear program, Ahmadinejad grows more militant in his public denunciations of what he refers to as “the little devil” (Israel) and “the big devil” (America). These threats and the calls for the destruction of the Jewish State, running parallel to Iran’s nuclear advancement, do not bode well for Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who administers a nation that was born of another holocaust when the dire threats of another madman similarly went unanswered.

As an optimist, I believe that good will always prevail over evil. However, the question is, how many lives must be sacrificed and how much blood must be spilled before a nation, a leader or a people prove ready to confront that evil. Thomas Jefferson astutely wrote in the Declaration of Independence that “all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.” It is this innate human deficiency that has led to the immense suffering of the Jewish people at the hands of such infamous miscreants as the Pharaohs of Egypt, the Russian Cossacks, Hitler’s Third Reich and the modern day Iranian backed terrorist groups, Hamas and Hezbollah. American support for the Jewish people has helped stave off cataclysmic results from the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah. In the case of Nazi Germany, six million Jews were senselessly murdered before a belated alliance between Great Britain and America defeated a movement that never should have transpired. One hundred thousand Jews were exterminated by the Cossacks in the Chmielnicki Massacre of 1649, and the atrocities that followed, before the Jewish people simply ceased to exist as a functioning minority in the Ukraine. With regard to Ancient Egypt, the children of Israel required a higher form of foreign intervention in order to achieve liberation.

President Obama has rightfully pursued and effectively implemented tougher U.N. sanctions against the Iranian government in response to its nuclear development. I applaud the President for these efforts but, to expect that these sanctions, alone, will result in curbing Iran’s appetite for weapons of mass destruction defies logic, ignores precedent, and disregards the lessons of history. Irrespective of the sanctions and the economic pressure they place on Iran, Ahmadinejad’s paramount goal is that of military superiority over Israel, the nation which the Iranian leader has professed his desire to see “wiped off the face of the map.” At best, a nuclear Iran would lead to Iranian hegemony in the Middle East, leaving America insignificant and weak in the region and forcing Israel into submission. At worst, and equally likely, is the prospect of a nuclear apocalypse, the consequences of which are unthinkable.

I believe that the only hope for a non-military solution to curbing Iranian ambitions is through a relentless campaign aimed at convincing Iran and its allies that America will do whatever is necessary to ensure the safety of Israel, up to and including a military assault on the nation’s nuclear facilities. President Obama’s greatest weakness, in regard to international diplomacy, is his timidity in the face of confrontation. For all the talents the President possesses in the realm of oratory and persuasion, his proven gift for intraparty influence does not appear to translate internationally. I do not believe that Mr. Obama wants to see Iran go nuclear. I merely believe that the President is, by nature, adverse to foreign confrontation. His penchant for submission and apologetic bent has, unfortunately, led many foreign nations to conclude that America is a paper tiger. This irresolute perception of our nation does not bode well for Israel.

There is a storm on the horizon. America and its allies must do all within their power to stop it before it becomes too late. America and Israel will ultimately prevail in a standoff with their shared enemy, but the cost of that victory may be devastating. It is our right and our duty to stand tough now, as to avoid a greater catastrophe in the future.

Jeremy Pitcoff