The Pomp & Circumstance of government was on display this past
Sunday (Jan. 4) at the Livingston County Historical Courthouse. Before family and
friends, Dr. Henry Vaupel and Lana Theis took their Oaths of Office as members
of the Michigan House of Representatives. Both were newly-elected to two-year
terms in the recent General Election. Both are Republicans.
Vaupel represents the 47th
District which includes the areas of Howell, Hartland, and Fowlerville, while
Theis represents the 42nd District which covers the areas of Brighton and
Hamburg-Pinckney.
On hand for the ceremony were the two
people they are replacing-- Bill Rogers and Cindy Denby-- neither of whom could
run for their seats again due to term limits. In the House, the limit is three
two-year terms.
The setting gave the occasion a gravitas,
taking place as it did inside the county’s original court chambers on the upper
floor; a location where so many judicial proceedings have been held since the
late 1800’s, where countless other (earlier) oaths-of-office were administered,
with photos of past judges hanging on the walls, and with the ornate and
colorful interior wall and ceiling designs evoking a long-age era.
The oath for each of the new
representatives was administered by the Honorable David. F. Viviano, a Michigan
Supreme Court Justice. Justice Viviano had also been on the ballot in November
and was elected to a new term. He had taken his own oath of office earlier in
the week in Lansing.
Preceding this main event was the Pledge of
Allegiance, led by county commissioner Steve Williams, and the singing of the
National Anthem by Deb Drick.
Bill Rogers opened the ceremony with some
observations, while Theis and Vaupel concluded the event with their respective
remarks. Justice Viviano also gave a short speech.
Three things
stuck in my mind:
Rogers talked about how quickly the six
years will go by, noting that he and Denby had taken their Oaths of Office at
the courthouse in January 2008. He pointed out that the new office-holders will
be representing the interests of their constituents in Livingston County, but
also the rest of Michigan’s 10 million residents. “At your seat on the House
floor is a green bottom and a red bottom, and the one you decide to push will
affect the lives of those 10 million people,” he said.
Theis reminded the audience that the United
States is the world’s oldest democracy, and that this ‘transfer of power’ is
done in a peaceful and orderly manner. “That wasn’t the case before this
country was established,” she said.
Vaupel exclaimed how excited he was about
this new responsibility, adding that it is important that people offer their
views on the issues. T his, he said, would assist him in making decision.
Representative government, on occasions
like this one, has an underlying majesty and eloquence. A man or woman rises
from our midst and, through the validation of the ballot box, assumes power and
influence. They can come from any and all stations of life. As Rogers
suggested, this power ought to be exercised with a sense of responsibility, and
done so judiciously, since it impacts so many others, now and in the future.
On the same token, if they lose the vote or
their term of office ends, the baton of power is passed on, and they return to
our ranks. This transfer, as Lana Theis noted, is not done through violent
uprising, a coup d'etat, or the point
of a bayonet. Rather it’s done on a winter’s afternoon on the steps of our
nation’s Capitol when, most notably, a new president takes office, in the
chambers of that building when new U.S. Senators and Representatives take their
oaths, on the steps of the State Capitol when a new Michigan Governor and other
elected state officials begin their terms, and in a setting like this
historical courthouse.
This process we have—including campaigns,
elections, the ceremonial transfer of power, and the ensuing business of governance—is a give-and-take (and, on
occasion, a push-and-shove) of new ideas being brought forth where they are
compared and contrasted with more familiar approaches. This process allows new
energy to burst forth into the wider pool of tradition and institutional
processes where it can cause a splash, rock the boat, or be assimilated into
the larger mass.
During the give-and-take, there can be, and
usually are, the inevitable clashes; the “us versus them” paradigm. But there
can be a synergy that results from this initial tug-of-war; a synthesis that
takes us beyond the confines of the present discussion and debate to a higher
insight, a different perspective, and a bolder approach.
In this republic, we entrust a few of our
fellow citizens to represent the rest of us; to make decisions on our behalf.
We understand, in doing so, that these people are the outcome of a partisan
contest; that they espouse certain personal values and principles that may not
be identical to our own; and that others may have a closer proximity to their
ears. Still, the oath they take implies
that they represent each and every one of their constituents. When all is said
and done, the duties of citizenship ought to trump the inclination of
partisanship.
The 56 signers of the Declaration of
Independence (our first representatives), in the concluding paragraph of this
document, stated: “And for the support
of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine
Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our
sacred Honor.”
Every
office holder, since then, has had those words, this Oath, as the beacon to
light their way forward. Not all have been honorable in their terms of office.
Such is the reality of human nature. But most have and, in doing so, have
sustained this “experiment in self-government.” We trust that the current crop
will, likewise, fulfill this responsibility. We make that assumption, having
heard them pledge that they will faithfully discharge the duties of their
respective office “according to the best of my ability…
so help me God.”
No comments:
Post a Comment