Throughout the semester, we have paid close attention to a single member
of Congress in order to gauge his or her ability to balance his responsibility
to represent his home district, in addition to serving our nation as a
whole. Ultimately, the intent of this
design is to ensure that our representatives remain accountable to their constituents
at home, presumably by passing and supporting bills they would find
favorable. However, upon closer
inspection, this type of dual responsibility is far from what is observed.
That is not to say that Congress lacks a dual nature entirely; there is
one, but the balancing act that takes place is far from what the founding
fathers expected or intended. The fact
that Americans hate Congress as a whole, but love their individual representatives,
has been a long documented anomaly nearly as old as the institution itself. No incident illustrated this idea better than
our recent government shutdown, which produced political gems such as this one
by Representative Alan Grayson: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJ71sg5u4LU. In his speech/tirade, he emphasizes just how
unpopular Congress has really become. The
112th Congress, which my observed representative, Mike Fitzpatrick,
was also a part of, had already been called “likely
the least productive one in U.S. history,” and even they managed to at least not shut themselves down. In spite of this, Fitzpatrick, as an individual
representative, maintains a strong amount of support in his home district.
How can this phenomenon be explained?
How can our Congressional branch be so inept at the national level, yet
simultaneously popular at home? In the
case of Mike Fitzpatrick, a variety of techniques and strategies are employed
to gain public support. Throughout the
semester, I observed numerous examples of these strategies: “At
home, in addition to going great lengths to help preserve and support the
natural beauty of Bucks County, Fitzpatrick has also ensured the social
well-being of his constituents, protecting them from efforts to scale back
Medicaid as well as securing the establishment of the National Veterans
Cemetery in Bucks County.” (BlogSpot)
Other than Medicaid, almost no provisions
within the above quote have anything to do with actual national policy. All of these are strictly PR moves; at the
end of the day, what impact does the establishment of a state park in a
Pennsylvania district have on the rest of the country? The answer is almost none. But for Fitzpatrick, and the people living
within his district, this is a big deal.
For them, this is a clear indication that Fitzpatrick has their best
interests in mind, that his priorities are in the right place, and that he
really does care about the “little man” back home.
Fitzpatrick would also be sure that his
public statements regarding policy were almost always the popular ones. In this sense, he would often “get on board”
with popular political movements and rhetoric, without actually ever really
producing any tangible results from them.
For example, for a number of weeks leading up to the government
shutdown, Fitzpatrick preached of the importance of bipartisan cooperation:
9/21 BlogPost: “On September 16, Fitzpatrick and Representative Emanuel
Cleaver (D- 5- MO) spoke together at
Maple Point Middle School in Langhorne, PA, emphasizing
to students the importance of ‘a
civil dialogue between two parties that
represent the people of the United States.’”
10/14
BlogPost: “Again, we are seeing
some of Fitzpatrick's classic strategies at play in these efforts. By calling for bipartisanship, he is
publicly removing himself from the
governmental shutdown impasse. He is showing that, while other Congressmen are consumed by petty party
divisions, he is not and, therefore, shouldn't
be blamed for the Congressional stand still we currently find ourselves.”
Several other examples of this “crusade for bipartisanship” can be seen
in other posts as well, but, when push came to shove, it became apparent just
how much merit one could put into these statements:
In an address delivered on Wednesday, [Fitzpatrick]
specifically calls out the President himself for what he
sees as unforgivable travesties. This ‘unacceptable wrong,’ according to Fitzpatrick, is
the denial of death benefits to the families of fallen soldiers during the shutdown. Within his address,
Fitzpatrick questions the President
and his decision making process directly, and goes on to conclude poignantly that ‘we've
made promises to our fighting men and women and their families... the House is ready to keep those promises but the
President is demonstrating at best a
failure to lead, and at worst, bare-knuckle partisanship’"
The above excerpt,
taken from my 10/14
BlogPost, completely contradicted any sort of progress towards
bipartisanship that may have been previously made. After calling for cooperation this whole
time, Fitzpatrick resorted to picking a sensitive issue such as the pension
given to the family of soldiers after their death and made it into a political
battleground. This confirmed for me something
that I had already suspected: all these calls for bipartisanship were little
more than lip service provided for the support of his constituents.
Throughout my time
observing his actions, Mike Fitzpatrick always appeared to be “doing the right
thing.” He said the right things. He supported the right bills. He helped the needy within his district. However, I came to the realization that, ultimately,
he accomplished almost nothing of any significant import on any sort of scale
beyond his home district. His primary
goal was always to appear in a favorable light for his constituents, which, for
the most part, was an area he exceeded in.
But how did this
affect his policy making at the national level?
Essentially, it didn’t. He may
have called for bipartisanship and the end of the government shutdown within
his own home district, but he’d then turn around in Washington and take part in
partisan battles as much as any other politician. It is easy to call for bipartisanship, yet it
is another thing entirely to actually back your words up with actions. While this may just be one example in
particular, I believe the concept can be applied to politics and the
institution of Congress as a whole: representatives are bound less, almost to
the point that they aren’t bound at all, to their constituents in regards to
national policies, as long as they effectively manage their image at home. This, to me, is counter to the vision our
founding fathers had for the institution and, as a result, an indication that
the “two Congresses” system of our representation is broken.
Sources:
2) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/14/no-labels-relaunch-congressional-gridlock_n_2469316.html
No comments:
Post a Comment