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.