There are 535 members of the United States Congress emanating from 435 districts and 50 states across the country. The legislative branch is generally known as the most “democratic” branch in our constitutional system due to each member representing their constituents in terms of interests, values, and decision-making. Yet, according to David Mayhew, one of the leading congressional scholars of the last half century, the members of congress act with one goal in mind: that of reelection. Furthermore, he argues that congressional staff, committees, and political parties play a role in this. This single-minded goal is debatable and will require more discussion in class. But if we assume it is true, is it a bad thing that members of congress are motivated by the desire to be reelected? Does this constant pursuit of reelection have a positive or negative impact on representation? Feel free to expand this discussion to representation in general.
Reminder: Your 3-page Obama Reflection paper is due on 4/30
David Mayhew’s “discovery” is sadly not something that we need to “assume” is true, it is. Much like any person in a position of power, they will be single-minded in their pursuit to maintain said power. More practical than that, being a member of congress is a job and a good one at that and the only way to keep said job is by making sure that your boss believes you are in fact doing a good job. In this situation it happens to be somewhat of a double edged sword, because a congressman’s boss is his constituents. Therefore we must not see a congressman’s pursuit of reelection as a bad thing.
ReplyDeleteHowever, having said that, it is not excusable for an elected official to do anything suspect or ethically vague in order to maintain their position. The desire to maintain ones position of power can lead to one’s own ethical guidelines to diminish. Yet many if not most elected officials manage to get reelected to office without dancing with the devil, so to speak, and represent their constituents well throughout their tenure.
The pursuit of reelection has in recent years gotten a negative spin in popular culture. However there is nothing wrong with an attempt to serve ones constituents. Many elected officials see their position as a sacred duty, a chance to serve ones country, like military service, and do it well with honor and respect to the office they hold.
The hope is and rightfully so that reelection every few years will motivate our elected officials to do those things that are important to their constituents. While campaign trails are littered with empty promises and broken dreams, most problems that get solved in our society are solved by dealing with our local officials. Motivation to hold on to this “sweet” position will and always does lead these select men and women to fix the woes in our everyday lives. Pot holes, noise complaints, permits, immigration and minor legal issues are all examples of problems solved through local community office of our local elected officials, and even though they and their staff are mostly concerned with holding on to their positions, what comes out of it is something all Americans can get behind, democracy in action.
Congress plays a crucial role in our system of shared powers, controlling key decisions and constraining presidents.Sadly, the overriding concern for most members of Congress is their own desire for re-election. In my opinion, the desire for reelection keeps politicians from running of in dangerous directions. It force politicians to be accountable.
ReplyDeleteVictoria is right about re-election being a double-edged sword. I don't want an unaccountable ruling body, but the voters often don't know what's good for them. Look at the recent acts of Congress: everything from bank bailouts to healthcare is done for instant gratification, with the sole purpose of trying to please the largely uninformed electorate.
ReplyDeleteBack in the 1830s Alexis de Tocqueville made an interesting observation: he criticized U.S. House members of being unruly philistines, while praising the intelligent, methodical approach to lawmaking employed by the Senate. I dunno what kind of effect repealing the 17th Amendment (which made Senators directly-elected) would have, but it's fascinating to see that indirectly-elected representatives seem to make better decisions than those who are constantly in the middle of a campaign. Just a thought.
Cameron-I think your thought about indirectly-elected representatives making better decisions than those constantly in the middle of a campaign is an interesting and valid one.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that members of congress hold the main goal of being re-elected which in most cases, I would agree is true, is, in and of itself not a bad thing. Its how they go about getting reelected and who they are listening to- constituents, lobbyists or PACs that really decides whether or not this is a democratic process. In general, I think no, it is not. It has nothing to do with true democracy. To be constantly up for re-election puts them in this place of constant campaigning, which for me, negates the democracy bit. Democracy is about us as citizens having our voices heard and playing active roles in our government. Democracy means that elected officials truly care about the needs, wants, cares and lives of those whom they are meant to represent. Trying to win an election is more about saying the “right” or politically correct things”, money, and pleasing your supporters (while gaining more), than an actual sincere interest in upholding the spirit of democracy. Democracy (according my Webster’s handy college dictionary)-1, government by the people. 2, political and social equality in general; belief in this. The 2nd definition is especially oppositional to the reality of the United States Government. If democracy is about social and political equality yet in order to even have a 10% chance of getting into office you must be able to raise at least $500,000 (http://wikisum.com/w/Jacobson:_The_politics_of_Congressional_elections), then we do not live in a democracy. If democracy means political and social equality yet the house is composed of 357 men and 78 women, 332 white people and 42 black people, 25 hispanic people, 5 asians, 1 native American and 30 jewish people, we do not live under democratic rule (http://www.thisnation.com/congress-facts.html).
Maybe we should redefine the word for our purposes to mean- Democracy- 1, Government by the richest most privileged, insincere, whitest, people. 2, Political and social equality for us who have the power, in other words; money and friends with money to make the laws, a belief in this, the blind faith in an unbalanced and harmful status quo. Or maybe instead of changing words we should just get real and call it what it is, I’m honestly not sure what that is, Naomi Wolf says we are well on our way to Fascism, she makes some interesting points but I’m not sure I completely agree with her (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/ten-steps-to-close-down-a_b_46695.html). We are definitely ruled by a corrupt elitist government that doesn’t have much to do with my (or Webster’s definition of democracy.
-courtney
Even if representatives who are in office rich and powerful does not necesseraly mean they are not true to the ideals of democracy, Courtney. Most of congressmen did not inherit their wealth, as the recent research of mibility in our society shows. In Forbes, among 200 whealthiest Americans only 37 inherited. I can not deny that it became harder to move up economically in comparison with few decades ago, but those success stories we hear about every day.
ReplyDeleteI think, constant hunger for reelection is very negative. Imagine in what kind of deals representatives can get involved in, just to be quaranteed reelection. Of course, "the voice of Americans" might be the last thing they worried about.
@Courtney,oh, and the numbers of women, asians and blacks in congress only shows that the power is becoming more and more equaly distributed. Its as a good thing, not a bad thing.
ReplyDeleteIts almost not an argument anymore. It would be if , for example, there were NO black congressmen.
@ Maria yes, the fact that there are 42 black people in the house of representatives is better than none, i agree but 332 does not equal 42 and that disparity is not even close to representative of the world we live in. More equal? I'm sorry but this term just seems silly to me, yup we've got more power (as women socially and politically than ever before) but more power does not mean equality and there is no democracy until there is equality- refer to Webster's definition).
ReplyDeleteSo if the congressmen did not inherit their wealth, that doesn't automatically mean they have come into it through honest hard work. In this american democracy there are pay disparities that are also inherently non-democratic. For instance look at a teacher's pay versus that of a pro- baseball player, does this reflect hard work or the importance of the job? Nope just our cultural value system...maybe this seems off topic but I think it's all interconnected.
The issue for me with politicians is that they are quite often not experts in the topics where they must decide legislation in. Professionally they tend to be lawyers and lawyers are not required to know, reality, just what is legal or not. There is a big difference there. Politicians are not required to listen to those who are qualified in their fields. Look at the whole global warming issue, overwhelming numbers of scientist promote the view that the world is changing due to our usage of natural resources. Plus you don’t have to be a scientist to realize that less pollution is better for you. If you disagree just lock yourself in a garage with the car running for a couple of hours. heh heh.
ReplyDeleteI digress.
There are pros and cons to term limitations, which will be debated during class I hope.
One of the more interesting politicians that I liked who actually got elected was Jesse Ventura of the profs home state of Minnesota. He had some interesting ideas.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Jesse_Ventura.htm
Open up, simplify, & demystify government. (Dec 2000)
Single House Legislature returns power to people. (Dec 2000)
Constitution is designed to be interpreted. (Jul 2000)
Feds leach away states’ rights. (Jul 2000)
Ban campaigning while earning a public paycheck. (Jul 2000)
Ban PAC funding; limit soft money; limit free air time. (Jul 2000)
Government should get out of the way and let people live. (Jan 1999)
Government service should be temporary; not a career. (Jan 1999)
Spend every 4th year removing obsolete laws. (Jan 1999)
Put political process on TV; exposure beats incumbency. (Jan 1999)
To change system, private citizens must get involved. (Jan 1999)
Supports a Unicameral Legislature. (Nov 1998)
Reforms must respect state's rights to select electors. (Aug 2001)
I like Tom's idea of specialization, but it's not a guarantee hoaxes like climate change won't develop in the future. After all, it was supposedly genuine scientists, not enviro-whackos like the Sierra Club, who started this global warming nonsense in the first place.
ReplyDeleteNow to make everyone mad.
Courtney seems to put a lot of emphasis on 'equality'. Why? The surest way to get bad politicians into office is through affirmative action-type pushes. It saddens me to report that most of the minorities and women in government are lousy, and I believe this is because many of them are elected on the grounds of 'social justice' rather than merit. This causes the voters to rely even more on white males, who, at the very least, did not get where they are through affirmative action.
As for identity politics, let's take it to its logical conclusion: If we can only be represented by someone who looks like us, than every one of the millions of citizens in your state/city/country had better look just like you or else somebody's not going to be represented! If a woman is president, am I disenfranchised? Sarah Palin doesn't look a thing like me.
@ Cameron
ReplyDeleteI love your enthusiasm, especially when you refer to environmentalists as wacko. So where's your factual rebuttal? Or is name calling your sole defense?
I truly think it can go both ways. Going for reelection is not a crime the problem is that everyone is thinking of themselves, which is kind of selfish! When we elect our officials I suppose we would like them to think and act together and come up with the best for our country so how is them separating from one another is helping us as a whole ?!?
ReplyDeleteI did a big research paper on climate change and it's still up on my own blog (which is currently closed). If you're really interested I could open it up, but I've got to get permission from the professor first; I don't wanna draw away attention from the class blog. So until then I'll have to rely on name-calling.
ReplyDelete@ Cameron I seem to recall some others who put alot of empasis on 'equality' (I'm not sure why you put that word in quotes), they were the dudes, who by the way, looked like you and signed the declaration of independence...It is not about wanting representatives to look like me, its about everyone, no matter what, having an equal opportunity to use their talent in the best interest of themselves and their country. It is about me wanting some people in positions of power who have an idea from experience about how the other half lives.
ReplyDeleteNow to address affirmative action and social justice,No offense intended but I sure have encountered a good amount of privileged white conservative males who get real uppitty about another demographic of people being handed privileges which they didn't seem to work for. Interesting.
I don't think affirmative action is an ideal system but it is intended to bring us to a place politically and socially where it will not be needed anymore.
When you get a chance, send a copy of your research findings on the hoax of climate change to the polar bears.
@Courtney:polar bears changed their address so the paper wont get to them anyways!
ReplyDelete@ Cameron-yes, you did get everyone mad! Good God, Cam, "inequality" In quotes,Really?????
Although, i have to admit, i agree about affirmative action pushes and the statement about by what means people get to their position of any kind of power. Its used everywhere now
Also, political identity, i agree that a woman president would not disenfranchise men but if mostly men are politicians, all of a sudden women feel threaten. Your conclusion is absolutely valid.
But "cliamte change is a hoax"??? i really want to see your paper.
Thinking about people that represent the citizens of the United States, we would want to believe that they are being truthful and are fighting for the best interest of the PEOPLE. But it is sad to realize that there are other motives for fighting on a issue and the most important is re-election. The goal of political figures seems not to fight for the rights and beliefs of people 75% of the time and the other 25% of the time fight to be re-elected. Am I upset at the process and how it occurs? YES!! Do I realize the strategy of those who are in office, attempting everything in your power to keep their job? Yes. It seems to me that the name of the game is to sell yourself by ANYMEANS and worry about issues that don't affect the upcoming election?
ReplyDelete