I think that most people—who do not have
a formal education regarding the institution of Congress—tend to look at
Congress on a personal level. They could view their party as the party that
deserves power, as the party that keeps things under control, while the other
party is the cause of the dysfunction and ineffectiveness that many people
identify in Congress. Similarly, many people may view their congressman
positively, but view Congress as a whole negatively, even if their respective congressman
is partaking in the same sort of activities as any other congressman (that they
would readily criticize). I think this is the natural gut reaction of any American
citizen who doesn’t study Congress—we think about Congress on a personal level
because it is meant to be the most personal institution (the peoples branch),
which in way, shows that Congress is functioning (at least in some respect) how
it should. We consider our congressmen personally because we feel we personally
played a role in electing them (and if you are one of the 30% of Americans who
voted in the midterm elections—you did!) and, our natural propensity to
strongly favor our political party and criticize the other, not only stems from
increasing partisan polarization, but also demonstrates some sort of hint of
political engagement, which is not such a bad thing.
I think that I went into this course with
the same sort of mindset—I judged Congress on a personal level. My gut reaction
was always to just criticize the Republican party for causing dysfunction,
leading to gridlock, or just grinding my gears in general. However, from day
one we discussed Congress as a whole, as a complex political institution with a
complex history. This challenged my original mindset and forced me to think of
Congress on more objective and removed terms. We began to discuss Congress as
outsiders viewing and analyzing congressional processes, rather that insiders,
directly affected by the actions of Congress on a daily basis.
Specifically, we began by discussing the
concept of the two Congresses, which I think can work to humanize any
congressmen. It demonstrates that each congressmen experiences a similar
struggle of balancing the needs of both their constituents, and the nation as a
whole. I think we can all agree that this is no easy feat. From the start, I think
discussing this aspect of congressional behavior deeply changed how I looked
and Congress and reflected on it. I recall writing the first blog post about
our own respective congressmen, mine being Mike Fitzpatrick, and feeling
nervous about the assignment because we were advised directly to not judge the congressmen on partisan or
personal grounds, and rather analyze the congressman’s behavior. Given the
knowledge that I had at that point—mainly surrounding the phenonmenon of the
two Congresses and the affect it has on governing—I tried to remain impartial
when studying Mike Fitzpatrick, and behave as a political scientist rather than
a partisan political actor. My main point of this blog post was to demonstrate
that Mike Fitzpatrick’s method of governing—where he sets priorities that he
repeatedly tries to accomplish—may be a fruitful method. Although I dislike
Fitzpatrick for a few partisan and personal reasons, he continuously strives to
send home benefits to his constituents and demonstrate that he is working for
them (even if that work would—in theory—positively affect the country as a
whole). This allows his constituents to know what to expect from his
leadership.
However, I think that if I went back and
relooked at Fitzpatrick, his programs, the policies and bills he supports, his
major donors, etc., I would see a different and more complex story. I would see
Mike Fitzpatrick within a historical framework of fluctuating party polarization,
power margins, party leadership; I would see him as claiming credit, as taking
positions, as advertising himself, as having a so called “hill style” and a
“home style,” within a political system fraught with money and monetary
influence. I originally analyzed Fitzpatrick as using the system to his
advantage, as acknowledging the limitations of the system and working his best
within the framework that is provided for him. However, looking at Fitzpatrick
with the congressionally analytical eyes I now have, I think I would be able to
view Fitzpatrick in a more holistic light.
I can see Fitzpatrick clearly engaging in
the electoral actions that Mayhew identifies—he sends home as many benefits as
possible to his constituents, and works hard to promote legislation that would
positively impact his district (this could be viewed as credit claiming).
Additionally, Fitzpatrick clearly takes strong stances on issues both on his
website (for, like many other Congressmen he has an entire section devoted to
outlining his positions on education, foreign policy, health, economy, jobs,
defense, etc.), as well as through votes on high profile bills. I also know
that Fitzpatrick does a pretty top notch job at advertising himself with little
to no issue content. He attends fourth of july parades, visits public schools,
and even plans his own public events and programs specifically for the district
(for example, the PA-8 small district boot camp). He does a good job of
disseminating his name among the district 8 masses that encourages them to
think of him positively, and as a congressmen that works for them. These
actions are logical in that Fitzpatrick has won continuously won his seat by
fairly small margins (as the district is nearly evenly split between those who
identify as democrat and republican) and even lost his seat in 2006. His
electoral behavior is necessarily exacerbated by the thin margin that divides
him from maintaining the seat, and losing it.
So, in a sense, Congressmen Fitzpatrick
is working within a framework and excelling—but as my knowledge regarding Congress
and the factors that influence its function has increased, I have began to be
able to identify Fitzpatrick’s behavior within a variety of different
frameworks, the electoral connection just being one of them. I think this what
I have gained most from this course, and my ability to look at Congress within
a variety of different frameworks—regarding party polarization, committee
systems, party leadership, campaign finance, as I have demonstrated through
rethinking my original blog post in a different light. I have gained more tools
to make analysis more complex when viewing Congress as an institution, rather
than just a group of frustrating shmucks who appear to make political life
difficult. I am able to look at the current Congress as representing a point in
time within the historical congressional framework—knowing and understanding
the fluctuations and changes that have defined Congress in the past and will
define Congress in the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment