The people who make laws and promulgate regulations should themselves be subject to the same laws and regulations, and under similar conditions.

The Decider-in-Chief has during these past few weeks vetoed House Resolution 976, the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (SCHIP), which would have cost us an extra $35 billion over the next five years. At the same time he has asked Congress for $50 billion extra, right now, for several thousand so-called Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected vehicles (MRAPs) to improve the safety of patrolling soldiers and Marines and increase their chances of surviving blasts from roadside bombs. These vehicles cost between half and three-quarters of a million dollars each and, according to armament and insurgency experts, will be ineffective as soon as they’re deployed; the enemy isn’t sitting on his hands while we come up with heavier armor. Soon our forces will begin to resemble those faceless, raygun-equipped walking machines in Star Wars. Never was there a better illustration of the popular definition of insanity: If what you’re doing isn’t working, redouble your efforts.

What amazes me about all this is the muted outcry of the people who will be forced to borrow the money to pay for the new weapons while at the same time scratching for the funds to procure private health insurance for their kids.

Which brings me to the proposition. Congresspersons, along with all other federal employees, enjoy a health care insurance plan that may be the world’s finest. It isn’t free, by any means; a payroll deduction covers the premiums. But the cost is much lower than that of private insurance plans, and those who enjoy it are, by and large, making more money than those who fall into the range of “three times the poverty level.” Lawmakers (including the executive) who vote against or veto plans like SCHIP, while at the same time voting to purchase absurdly priced military equipment, should be required to spend a few years making ends meet while insuring their families against calamitous medical bills.

On the same note, we should never forget that the Viet Nam war would have dragged on much longer, cost more billions and lives (for what? Does anyone remember?) if it hadn’t been for the military draft, which galvanized public opinion as probably nothing else could have. The hawks who sold us the notion that Iraq and its dictator were threats to liberty, democracy, and our way of life – but who themselves had other priorities when faced with the draft – need to have children or grandchildren riding around Baghdad through the unpredictable hell of shaped projectile charges and suicide bombers. And those who would waffle over the definition of, for example, “enhanced interrogation techniques” and “waterboarding,” as the current nominee for Attorney General is, should witness personally the operations at close hand, or perhaps even try them.

I’m currently in a church study group that’s reading Mark Kurlansky’s book Nonviolence. Kurlansky makes a strong, if not watertight, case for nonviolence as an effective response to the essential violence of power. So far I’ve gleaned a couple of interesting ideas from the book.

The American Revolution, he says, probably could have been accomplished without colonial military activity. The colonies were costing Great Britain more money and trouble each year, and accommodation couldn’t have been far off. Canada, after all, managed to disentangle itself gently from colonial status. But a small minority of colonial leaders agitated for armed rebellion. Once the first shots were fired and King George’s blood was up, there was no other course open. Here occurred what Kurlansky calls “the moment of silence” that always follows a declaration of war, no matter how unpopular and ill-advised. Those who have been and still are against the conflict are forced to stifle their opposition for fear of being labeled unpatriotic or traitors. Those who didn’t, during the first days of the Revolution, were hanged, dispossessed, or exiled – any excuse for the “patriots,” as they called themselves, to cement their position. This all echoes eerily through the memories of the days after September 11 and the speedy passage of the Patriot Act.

The second idea of Kurlansky’s that’s stuck with me is the notion of “natural revolution.” This is a nonviolent revolution that occurs when a preponderance of the people governed disagree profoundly with their government over a period of time. The French Revolution, he says, occurred well before Bastille Day because the country was descending into disfunction that the government had neither the wit nor the will to attempt to control. By the same token, I suppose, the Russian Revolution was already taking place before the first shots were fired by the revolutionaries.

If you read and believe public opinion polls, a preponderance of Americans express disgust or dissatisfaction at the course our country is following in both domestic security restrictions and international relations. President Bush’s popularity is at historic lows; Congress’s is even lower. If there were to be a draft, as suggested by Congressman Rangel, or if the anti-Bush bumper stickers reading “X Days to Go” had on them a much higher number, people might be getting off their duffs and shaking their fists – instead of wringing their hands – over the sorry spectacle of the world’s most powerful country pouring its borrowed resources down a bottomless drain while its kids go without adequate medical care for fear of not being able to pay the doctor’s bill.