Thursday, July 28, 2005
On DR-CAFTA and the Nature of Representation
The House of Representatives last night (well technically early this morning) passed the Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA) 217-215, with a couple of Republican members not voting. I don’t have a real problem with this result, as I’ve commented before, free trade is, on the whole and over the long run, a good thing, but this agreement might not have been the best vehicle at this present time. Be that as it may, the debate and the vote (a 15 minute vote that by my watch lasted in excess of 1 hour and 15 minutes) last night got me to thinking, what exactly are the duties of House members, who do they ultimately owe their votes to, their constituents, their party, their country, or some combination of all of the above?
DR-CAFTA might be exhibit A to this problem. Take, for example, many of the GOP members from southern districts that either produce textiles and apparel or grow sugar, both of which were seen as vulnerable given some of the provisions of DR-CAFTA (for what it’s worth some of the arguments against the agreement were downright embarrassing and wholly without foundation in fact or law, but the two that I have highlighted were among the most well crafted and honest in terms of pros and cons). How were these people supposed to vote? Arguably the agreement put the screws to the people that live and work in those districts and in the vulnerable industries, however, there are other districts around the country that stood to benefit greatly from some of the provisions of DR-CAFTA. Moreover, the agreement was seen as a much needed political win for the Bush administration and House leadership who have had some trouble keeping people in line recently. Are those considerations to matter to House members?
I don’t know the answers to these questions, but it seems to me that individual members arguably have a primary responsibility to vote in the best interests of the people who elected them to Congress. In most instances the district’s interests will align with the interests of the leadership, the Party, the country, and the President. In some isolated cases, however, like DR-CAFTA, it might be necessary for a member to say: "I’m sorry, but this isn’t in my constituent’s best interests. I know it helps this member’s people over here, but I don’t represent them, thus, I can’t give you my vote on this one." Or, maybe I’m wrong? Maybe when the President comes to Capitol Hill and asks for your vote to help the country be more secure by making the DR-CAFTA countries more democratic you are supposed to say: "Yes, sir, even if this screws my constituents you have my vote. I’m a loyal party guy, the President has asked for my support and this is what I need to do." I’m not going to fault any member, Democrat or Republican for their vote on DR-CAFTA, but I have to admit a certain amount of respect for those Members that said on the floor was that as supportive as they may be of the principles of free trade, they couldn’t vote for this agreement because of its negative (or perceived negative) effects on the businesses and interests of their constituents. Thoughts from the peanut gallery will be interesting, I hope.
DR-CAFTA might be exhibit A to this problem. Take, for example, many of the GOP members from southern districts that either produce textiles and apparel or grow sugar, both of which were seen as vulnerable given some of the provisions of DR-CAFTA (for what it’s worth some of the arguments against the agreement were downright embarrassing and wholly without foundation in fact or law, but the two that I have highlighted were among the most well crafted and honest in terms of pros and cons). How were these people supposed to vote? Arguably the agreement put the screws to the people that live and work in those districts and in the vulnerable industries, however, there are other districts around the country that stood to benefit greatly from some of the provisions of DR-CAFTA. Moreover, the agreement was seen as a much needed political win for the Bush administration and House leadership who have had some trouble keeping people in line recently. Are those considerations to matter to House members?
I don’t know the answers to these questions, but it seems to me that individual members arguably have a primary responsibility to vote in the best interests of the people who elected them to Congress. In most instances the district’s interests will align with the interests of the leadership, the Party, the country, and the President. In some isolated cases, however, like DR-CAFTA, it might be necessary for a member to say: "I’m sorry, but this isn’t in my constituent’s best interests. I know it helps this member’s people over here, but I don’t represent them, thus, I can’t give you my vote on this one." Or, maybe I’m wrong? Maybe when the President comes to Capitol Hill and asks for your vote to help the country be more secure by making the DR-CAFTA countries more democratic you are supposed to say: "Yes, sir, even if this screws my constituents you have my vote. I’m a loyal party guy, the President has asked for my support and this is what I need to do." I’m not going to fault any member, Democrat or Republican for their vote on DR-CAFTA, but I have to admit a certain amount of respect for those Members that said on the floor was that as supportive as they may be of the principles of free trade, they couldn’t vote for this agreement because of its negative (or perceived negative) effects on the businesses and interests of their constituents. Thoughts from the peanut gallery will be interesting, I hope.
# posted by mouldfan : 8:57 AM
