Monday, September 26, 2005
A Criteria for Congress
A question has arisen in the comments that in the course of responding to I felt deserved its own substantive post. The question relates to what criteria, if any, people should use when deciding on a Member of Congress’s job performance. It stemmed from my contention that federal term-limits are a bad idea in large part because it takes several terms (I think I said 5 but I’ll be less specific now) before a junior member of Congress has enough experience, political clout, and procedural know how to get an agenda or legislation enacted.
I'm not sure I'm the best person to establish criteria for the mythical "average voter" because I actually pay attention to things like what committees my Congressperson and Senators sit on, and I know far too much about the various pieces of legislation that show up in the local paper's "roll call" section that notes key votes of members of Congress (this is more due to my job than anything else).
I do, however, think that there is a reason that people like things like "pork projects." Namely, they are tangible evidence of their elected official’s efforts. We can see things like roads, bridges, parking structures, and the like. Moreover, there are signs and ribbon cutting ceremonies that remind everyone where the money and influence came from to get the job done. Don't forget JOBS, pork creates JOBS, and those are important too.
Bottom line, if you try to explain that I voted for person X over Y because of their consistent votes with respect to any more than a couple of issues, you would lose people in the process. The overwhelming majority of voters, in my opinion, for better or worse, gravitate towards three things when voting for Members of Congress: (1) party affiliation. Accurate or not, the terms Democrat or Republican have meaning to most voters who tend to associate with one or the other. The so-called swing voters or independents aren’t really third-party people, they are simply those voters who don’t consistently vote based on this category, but rather based on the next two; (2) the candidate's position on so-called hot-button issues (abortion, school prayer, health care, social security reform, etc.); or (3) sense of the candidate’s personality derived primarily from media coverage, ads or debates, if there are any (this is where the "I'd like to have a beer with that guy so I'll vote for him to be President" mentality comes from). Anything that doesn't fit into one of those three categories doesn’t register with the "average voter." Thus, 95% of what legislators actually do doesn't register at the ballot box. Ask a voter if he knows how their congressperson voted (or even better how they should have voted) on the latest proposal to relocate federal courts in Louisiana and I'm sure you'll get a quizzical look, followed by an "I don't know." Ask about the latest vote to authorize the Secretary of HHS to do something related to drug regulation, and I'm sure you get the same reaction.
In other words, the criteria has to be based on the tangible not the academic or the mundane. One problem is that while the tangible things are important, a large part of being a legislator arguably isn’t tangible, and tends not to really reflect governing principles or favored policies. I have no doubt if asked that most GOP members of Congress would say that spending is out of control, but they do it because it’s the political reality, it’s tangible and it’s what they are judged on. Change the electorate first before you change the politicians. I understand it's easier to do it the other way, but I don't think it’s politically possible right now. I’m not calling the average voter stupid, or uninformed, rather I’m suggesting that things are much more complicated than they seem. If it was as simple as cutting this program or that program I think you’d see a lot more slashing of the federal budget. At the end of the day, those cuts are tangible, jobs are lost, offices and facilities close or are consolidated. In other words, people and more importantly voters notice, and they start to ask why and demand answers. It’s easier to spend the money and avoid the questions, especially in an election year. Yes, there is something to be said for principles, but as Democrats are discovering, principled (or so-called principled objections as I’m sure others won’t hesitate to point out that Democrats have no principles) are nice, but they don’t win elections. One last thing, I know I have a cynical view of the general electorate, but it’s my view and I’m sticking to it.
I'm not sure I'm the best person to establish criteria for the mythical "average voter" because I actually pay attention to things like what committees my Congressperson and Senators sit on, and I know far too much about the various pieces of legislation that show up in the local paper's "roll call" section that notes key votes of members of Congress (this is more due to my job than anything else).
I do, however, think that there is a reason that people like things like "pork projects." Namely, they are tangible evidence of their elected official’s efforts. We can see things like roads, bridges, parking structures, and the like. Moreover, there are signs and ribbon cutting ceremonies that remind everyone where the money and influence came from to get the job done. Don't forget JOBS, pork creates JOBS, and those are important too.
Bottom line, if you try to explain that I voted for person X over Y because of their consistent votes with respect to any more than a couple of issues, you would lose people in the process. The overwhelming majority of voters, in my opinion, for better or worse, gravitate towards three things when voting for Members of Congress: (1) party affiliation. Accurate or not, the terms Democrat or Republican have meaning to most voters who tend to associate with one or the other. The so-called swing voters or independents aren’t really third-party people, they are simply those voters who don’t consistently vote based on this category, but rather based on the next two; (2) the candidate's position on so-called hot-button issues (abortion, school prayer, health care, social security reform, etc.); or (3) sense of the candidate’s personality derived primarily from media coverage, ads or debates, if there are any (this is where the "I'd like to have a beer with that guy so I'll vote for him to be President" mentality comes from). Anything that doesn't fit into one of those three categories doesn’t register with the "average voter." Thus, 95% of what legislators actually do doesn't register at the ballot box. Ask a voter if he knows how their congressperson voted (or even better how they should have voted) on the latest proposal to relocate federal courts in Louisiana and I'm sure you'll get a quizzical look, followed by an "I don't know." Ask about the latest vote to authorize the Secretary of HHS to do something related to drug regulation, and I'm sure you get the same reaction.
In other words, the criteria has to be based on the tangible not the academic or the mundane. One problem is that while the tangible things are important, a large part of being a legislator arguably isn’t tangible, and tends not to really reflect governing principles or favored policies. I have no doubt if asked that most GOP members of Congress would say that spending is out of control, but they do it because it’s the political reality, it’s tangible and it’s what they are judged on. Change the electorate first before you change the politicians. I understand it's easier to do it the other way, but I don't think it’s politically possible right now. I’m not calling the average voter stupid, or uninformed, rather I’m suggesting that things are much more complicated than they seem. If it was as simple as cutting this program or that program I think you’d see a lot more slashing of the federal budget. At the end of the day, those cuts are tangible, jobs are lost, offices and facilities close or are consolidated. In other words, people and more importantly voters notice, and they start to ask why and demand answers. It’s easier to spend the money and avoid the questions, especially in an election year. Yes, there is something to be said for principles, but as Democrats are discovering, principled (or so-called principled objections as I’m sure others won’t hesitate to point out that Democrats have no principles) are nice, but they don’t win elections. One last thing, I know I have a cynical view of the general electorate, but it’s my view and I’m sticking to it.
# posted by mouldfan : 4:34 PM
