Final Post

            I think that the vast majority of my blog posts over the course of the semester have touched on- either directly or indirectly- the tremendous gap between Mr. Frelinghuysen’s differing courses of conduct between the two congresses. While he portrays and advertises himself as a political moderate at home, his voting record over the course of his tenure in the House that he has voted with his party on 94% of votes. This is merely a microcosm of a trend that has been manifest in many of my blog posts: he often covers up his legislative activity with politically correct rhetoric and statements that seem calculated to help him keep his seat in the House.

            On 9/22, I published a post discussing a visit Mr. Frelinghuysen made to a superfund site in his district. Superfund mandates that producers of hazardous, toxic waste fund cleanup efforts, not taxpayer dollars. Frelinghuysen made a statement that was consistent with this goal and seemed to indicate that he was interested in the wise and responsible distribution of his constituent’s tax dollars. However, in 2000, he was one of a small cohort in Congress that voted for a bill that would exempt small businesses from the superfund law. Furthermore, an environmental advocacy group identified Mr. Frelinghuysen as an anti-environment representative. The dichotomy between the two Representative Frelinghuysens is clear in this case. He is not identified as an environmentally friendly legislator, yet he portrays himself as an environmentally friendly representative.

            I discussed another good example of contradictory behavior in my post on 9/29. That week, Representative Frelinghuysen’s home state of New Jersey legalized gay marriage. Many New Jersey politicians made some kind of public statement on the matter. This includes Republican Governor Chris Christie, who indicated that he was going to  Frelinghuysen remained silent. Gay Marriage is one of the important and relevant discourses of “politics at home”. One ought reasonably expect that a representative share an opinion on the matter with his constituency. Yet he was silent. Upon further research and analysis, I learned that Frelinghuysen had voted against a constitutional amendment that would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman in 2006. He also voted in the affirmative on a bill that sought to prohibit job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in 2007.

            His district is predominantly Republican, and there is also a strong Tea Party contingency in his district. His electoral status depends on being able to appease their views on social issues like gay marriage. The sad reality is that the “electoral connection” between the Two Congresses produces a reality wherein a representative can’t share with his district what he really feels. This signifies that it is difficult for a representative to mediate the Two Congresses with dignity and honor. Early political theorists like Plato and Aristotle suggested that politicians be men of good character and honor. The democracy of Ancient Greece was certainly not that way. However, it would be reasonable for one to hope that political personalities would not be cogs in an institutional structure that makes it impossible to act ethically.

            When I took class with Dr. Mello, he suggested that politics boils down to three essential questions: 1) “Who are we”, as a society and state? 2) What is the type of world we want to live in? 3) What means will we use to bring about that world? I think it is appropriate to consider these questions when asked if the congresses are compatible or not. The way the two institutions coincide is not consistent with any answer that any American would hope to provide to these questions. That is, to my mind, a political tragedy.

Can it be done? It's hard, but yes.

In thinking about the question of whether the two Congresses ultimately work together, I have come to the conclusion that it is not possible nor is it fair to say that it is completely one way or another. The two Congresses are not completely compatible but they are not detrimental to each other either. From following the progress of New York Senator Charles Schumer this semester and Congress as a whole, it has become clear to me that balancing state/district responsibilities with Washington responsibilities can be tough but it is not impossible, it can be done by congressmen/women. Where most of the conflict our congressmen/women face comes from is not from the individual representatives but from the parties they belong to as a whole and their inability to come to compromises when the time arises.

For Charles Schumer, balancing his home state, New York, with the work that he has to do in Washington, is not as much of a problem as it is for other congressmen/women. With all the experience he has had within Congress, working within government for more than 20 years and being the third ranking Democrat, and coming from a state that is majority left, it has been easier for Schumer to take clear stances on certain issues like same- sex marriage than it would be for representatives that come from swing states that tend to be harder to please.  Schumer is usually clear with how he feels about something because a lot of the time what his party wants aligns with what his constituents want as well. On the other hand, even if it is not aligned, the effort that he shows to his constituents by showing an interest in what they want/need counts as well too. Promising that he would stay in close contact with his constituents and visit every county in New York and actually sticking to that promise, at the very least, gives the illusion that Schumer is truly invested in what they need. (http://2congressesatwork.blogspot.com/2013/09/charles-schumer.html) After all, a big part of being a congressman/woman besides lawmaking is campaigning and image. Therefore, by visiting these counties, Schumer maintains his image of a man that keeps to his word and truly cares about his constituents.

This is not to say that Schumer has not done things for the state of New York. While this tactic is true, Schumer truly does care about the state of New York. If anything, following Schumer this semester has showed me that the way to make the two Congresses work (without taking into consideration the partisan issues that get in the way) is to stay true to what you say you are going to do and your ideologies. Schumer is a liberal Democrat, his voting record supports that. Schumer made a promise to the people of New York, he kept that promise. Schumer doesn’t stray from his work; he takes on issues that coincide with the committees he’s on.  When Avonte Oquendo, a 14 year old autistic boy, went missing in New York, Schumer advocated not only for this family and the people in his state but also for families dealing with autism everywhere. He advocated for putting tracking devices on people with autism to help find them when they get lost which would make them a part of the same program that helps find people with Alzheimer’s disease. (http://2congressesatwork.blogspot.com/2013/11/track-them-track-them-all-please.html) He took a New York problem and made it an everybody problem and that is what a good representative does. Schumer has also worked to help New York’s economy grow and has been working towards improving homeland security ever since 9/11. Being that he is the chairman of the subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security, Schumer also advocated allowing “the Filipino people here to continue doing what they came here to do in the first place, work, school, etc. This extension would last as long as it takes for the Philippines to recover.” (http://2congressesatwork.blogspot.com/2013/11/will-we-show-little-classic-american.html).

Now when we start to take into consideration partisan issues, we begin to see why it cannot be fully true that the two Congresses are compatible. A clear example of this statement would be the most recent government shutdown, when it was nothing but pure bickering from both parties that led to the closing of national parks and the furloughing of hundreds of people from their jobs. Compromises could have been made and a government shutdown could have been avoided but members of congress became too focused on what their individual parties wanted and not what was best for the country. Even when Schumer made statements on this issue, it seemed, at least to me, that he was ready to do his job as a congressman and pass this bill. He even acknowledged the fact that Republicans didn’t agree with this bill and respected that but he knew as a congressman that at the brink of a shutdown that was not the right outlet for them to fight the bill. (http://2congressesatwork.blogspot.com/2013/10/weve-been-sacrificed-to-right-wing-gods.html) Yet in the end we saw a government shutdown because they couldn’t see past party lines and when it was over all Schumer had to say was, this isn't a day for happiness or exaltation. We spent two weeks risking extreme danger merely to end up right where we started: opening the government, paying our bills, and negotiating a budget." (http://2congressesatwork.blogspot.com/2013/10/were-right-back-where-we-started.html)

Only in an ideal world would our two Congresses be completely compatible. It is fair to say that they can be, as Schumer has shown it is possible, but with party lines forever separating what can and cannot be done, instead of what is good or bad for our nation, there is no telling when we will see another gridlock, or worse, a government shutdown. 

Blending the Roles of People's Representative and Lawmaker

                To be in Congress is to fill a double role.  One needs to be both a legislator at the national level: making laws which are necessary to the continued functioning of the country, as well as a representative for a home district: following the will of one’s constituents and insuring their continuing support.  Without the support of their constituents, a member of Congress will not stay in Congress long enough to create any important laws.  Thus, the line which Senators and Representatives must walk becomes a balancing act between appeasing members of one’s one home state or district, and engaging in the vital lawmaking which they were elected for in the first place.  The question is whether or not it is possible to fill both roles simultaneously or if these roles conflict to the degree that they wind up creating insurmountable obstacles for the other.  In theory, a member of Congress should be able to represent their constituents through the act of lawmaking, i.e. enacting laws which the people who elected them want.  However, it is not always quite so simple.  Not everyone wants the same laws enacted, even those people who voted for the same person.  In order to fulfill both sets of requirements, members of Congress must blend the two roles as much as they can in order to stay in Congress and continue to create the laws which they, and the people they represent, deem necessary.

                Over the past three months, I have been following the ways in which Senator Elizabeth Warren balances and blends her role as both lawmaker and peoples representative.  One of the most recent members of the Senate, Warren is certainly new to the double role which she now plays, but that does not mean that she is a political novice.  With a populist agenda and fiery rhetoric, Warren does not have any trouble galvanizing the middle class.  Even before her Senate run, she had built up a name for herself as the scourge of unregulated banking and a staunch defender of middle and working class families. Her populist fame was clear when she ran for the Senate in 2012.  97% of her funding came in donations of less than $100. It was clear from the outset that the middle class was on her side.  Because of the nature of her support, her two roles were much easier to balance than they can be for other members of Congress.  From her time before the Senate to her time in the Senate, her goals have not changed.  She fights for regulated banking, fair lending practices for all (but especially those who need the most help), and a level playing field for all.  Warren is in a unique position where she is able to represent her constituents by making the laws they put her there to make.

                However, all the important legislation in the world won’t mean much if the constituents don’t hear about it.  Again, Warren is a unique case.  Many members of Congress will field questions from reporters on Capitol Hill or will answer questions as the walk through the halls of Congress. This is a good way to get a name out there and insure that constituents recognize the work they do.  Warren, on the other hand will actively avoid reporters on The Hill.  While she will almost never speak to reporters when they approach her in Washington, she will regularly field questions when she is home in Massachusetts.  She doesn’t have the national media tell her constituents the work she does; she tells them herself.  For a member of Congress, this is an ideal way to insure that people know what she does for them, and by going directly to the people of her home state, it demonstrates that she wants them to remember that she works for them.

                Warren, even in spite of her avoidance of Washington journalists, is never short on national media attention.  Her impassioned speeches, both on the Senate floor and at conferences and lectures around the country, regularly make the national news and spread like wildfire on social media sites.  Always the populist, she rails against government corruption, cuts to social services, and economic policies which benefit the rich at the expense of the poor. By standing out and speaking up for what she, and the majority of her state, believes in, she will regularly steal the national spotlight. In doing so, she is able to act both as a lawmaker by defending her stance on bills and as a representative of her home state by reminding them why they put her there.

                For those members of Congress who are not quite so adept at stealing the national spotlight, a common way to maintain the support of a state or district is through money in the form of government grants.  If a Senator or Representative wants to remind their constituents that they should continue to elect them, sending money home can be the best way of doing that.  Even Elizabeth Warren understands this concept well.  Last month, she was home in Massachusetts to announce two grants totaling over $15 million.  The grants which went toward reducing juvenile recidivism rates and improving public schools were well received and represented just one more way that a member of Congress can appeal to their constituents.

                While Elizabeth Warren is a unique case, to be sure, she demonstrates that it is possible for a member of Congress to not only fill their two roles, but to blend the two roles and preform them at the same time.  She is able to act to do this by fighting ardently for the laws which gained her renown even before her time in Congress began, and establishing a name for herself by making waves and gaining national attention.  The two roles can conflict, however.  There are times when Warren must make sure that she appeals directly to her home state.  Regular trips home to speak at an event, interview with local news sources, or announce grants have the detrimental effect of cutting into vital time that could be spent insuring the passage of vital laws.  The existence and importance of these two roles can stretch a member of Congress thin at times, but if managed properly by talented politician, they can exist side by side.

Sources:

Elizabeth Warren: New to the Senate, but a Capitol Hill Veteran

 http://2congressesatwork.blogspot.com/2013/09/elizabeth-warren-new-to-senate-but.html

A Week of Grand Speeches for Elizabeth Warren

http://2congressesatwork.blogspot.com/2013/09/a-week-of-grand-speeches-for-elizabeth.html

Elizabeth Warren Talks Corruption, Money, and the Growing Tension Between Congress and the Courts

http://2congressesatwork.blogspot.com/2013/09/elizabeth-warren-talks-corruption-money.html

Liz Warren's Speech Goes Viral, Prompts More Speculation

http://2congressesatwork.blogspot.com/2013/10/liz-warrens-speech-goes-viral-prompts.html