According to
her local office staff, confirmed by her own words in a recent TV interview, my
freshman congresswoman, Claudia Tenney, was in Iraq and Afghanistan to visit
the troops over the congressional recess period. Now it may be that this Trump supporter needs
to learn something there that is integral to serving on the House Finance Committee,
but I doubt it. Or maybe she is learning
how to deal with something that will benefit her home district – who knows? What we do know is that no one in her local
district office had much knowledge of what she would be doing in Iraq, but they
were sure she was not planning to be in the district holding a Town Hall
meeting!
What we
learned from her TV interview was astounding.
This former lower house Assemblywoman from upstate New York had been
chosen (after about 45 days in office) to be on a special congressional junket
that was reportedly concerned with national security. Supposedly, her trip to
visit troops would be of help in determining what was needed to bolster our
national security against foreign (Islamic ISIS) invaders. I would love to get my hands on the written
report (not that there will be one) of that trip to see just how much was
learned about that subject! Unfortunately,
in the midst of the interview, her words indicated that national
security and federal matters took precedence over anything else, and that this has been true from
our earliest history as the primary duty of the Congress.
All of which
brings me around to my main concern today. Considering the debacle of Trump’s most recent
press conference, and the flight of selected Republican congressional
representatives (reported by a knowledgeable source to be around 200) from facing
their constituents in Town Halls in home districts, I think it is high time to
talk a bit about representative democracy. Let’s begin
with some general definitions of the word “representation.”
“the action of speaking or acting on behalf of someone”
(Oxford)
“the action or fact of one person standing for another so as to have the
rights and obligations of the person represented”
“the fact of being represented especially in a
legislative body” (Merriam Webster)
“Representation, in government, method or process of enabling
the citizenry, or some of them, to participate in the shaping of legislation
and governmental policy through deputies chosen by them.” (Britannica)
We also
should look at definitions of the word “representative”.
- Representing or serving to represent;
specifically acting or speaking, esp., by due authority, in the place of
or on behalf of another or others;
- Of, characterized by, or based on, representation
of the people by elected delegates
- A person duly authorized to act or speak for another or others (Websters New World)
Synonyms:
Commissioner, deputy, messenger, substitute,
proxy, delegate, surrogate, agent, advocate
In all of
these definitions and synonyms, there is the overwhelming sense that
representation (and being a representative) has the distinct flavor of acting
on behalf of someone else with some degree of authorization, commission or
permission given to duly elected representatives. However - and this is crucial - authorization
does not appear to be a permanent action in our system. It is voters who must be seen as deputizing,
choosing, and obligating the proxies or representatives. In our system, it is always the voters who are
responsible for granting authority for building and shaping policy and
legislation.
Elections
are key to naming who the representatives will be, and key to temporary
commissioning of their proxies to act on their behalf, but that authority is
renewable at every election. More
especially, it should be clear that such authority does not give the
representative carte blanche to operate as he or she pleases. The commission to act on behalf of voters does
not include an authority to create whatever acts the representative cares to
pursue. The whole idea of representation
– acting on behalf of, or in the place of others – does not include the ability
to act without further consultation. In
other words, election is not equivalent to a total mandate to act as though
there is no further obligation to gather information and opinions from those
represented.
So, just how
did we get to this point of office-holders believing that their obligations and
responsibilities include:
- Trips to other parts of the world at taxpayers’ expense for no other
reason than to enjoy themselves (and maybe to learn something) and
to escape visits to their constituencies? Have you ever benefited to any
degree by your congressman going on such a jaunt? Of course not; it’s not done for your
benefit.
- Political Party ideology getting between the
representatives and those represented. The
Constitution was written before full blown parties existed; leaving us
with a foundational document that sees representatives as legislators, debaters,
negotiators, advisors and overseers, but not as Party loyalists who put
their party’s ideology before all else.
- The Constitution does not ever mention one of the
duties that all representatives find arduous: the raising of funds to
support election and re-election; most spend at least half of their
time in office doing just that.
- A spin-off
of money-raising is the now inordinate time and effort office-seekers
and holders must spend with their “sponsors,” and lobbyists, granting
access and quality time to them. Elected
representatives, who want to be re-elected, must pay attention to them or
risk their careers in the Congress, or in whatever office they may
hold. Thus, lobbyists and favor-seeking
donors, making requests for delay in legislation or for laws and
regulations written a certain way, have become the shadow constituency
that must be nurtured and placated at almost every turn. In her TV interview,
my congresswoman made it quite plain that she spends an inordinate amount
of time talking to “constituents” in her Washington office. One has to wonder – to which
constituency is she talking?
- Election has also, for some, led to a
leadership role, with increased power over process and people, and the
all-important influence that can persuade and manipulate others. Just being an elected office-holder
tempts some to believe that they are special in some way, and that can lead
to self-aggrandizement in some form: inside information that enables
shrewd and lucrative investment; the ability to stay in power for an
entire career of perhaps 20-30 years.
- Such acquisition of power and influence is often thought
to be worthy of special privileges and rewards. Holding elective office is even seen by
some as being above the law, whether legal or moral. And voila – scandals and investigations, access to
government money, hundreds of great choices for family healthcare, and
pension plans not open to ordinary citizens appear on the scene.
- There is also the unique privilege of exemption from provisions of legislation and law that apply to everyone else. Did you know, for instance, that Congress exempted themselves from the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)? That’s right. You and I cannot get access, for instance, to a record of their meetings and conversations with their shadow constituency; nor can we access anything that is deemed to be personal property, like a calendar or schedule. Only what is said before Congress or a congressional committee is on the public record and therefore accessible.
Part of the
problem is that the Constitution does not give a great deal of guidance for the
role of representatives in the Congress. It sets some eligibility guidelines for the
office, but not many responsibilities for the role. It does tell us that they must represent a
certain district; it is clear that they must pass legislation that applies to
the defense and welfare of the People, set their own rules for the House and
Senate, and raise money for government operations. A paper about representation by the
Congressional Research Service, dated Nov. 9, 2012, confirms this.
“The
U.S. Constitution establishes qualifications for Representatives and Senators,
but it is silent about the roles and duties of an individual Member of
Congress. House and Senate rules require
only that Members be present and vote on each question placed before their
chamber. Beyond voting requirements,
there is no formal set of expectations or official explanation of what roles or
duties are required, or what different Members might emphasize as they carry
out their work. In the absence of such formal authorities, many of the
responsibilities that Members of Congress have assumed over the years have
evolved from the expectations of Members and their constituencies.
“In different periods of American history, the role
of Congress shifted along with changing relations with the other branches of
government, and was sometimes marked by intense partisanship and other times by
cooperation across the aisle. Since the mid nineteen fifties, Congress has been marked by
increasing partisanship in which congresspersons voted increasingly in line
with their party, and were reluctant to cross the aisle to find compromises,
and academics disagree about what factors underlie this trend towards greater
partisanship and whether it is continuing.”
One could say in response to the latter that partisanship
has not only grown and prospered, it has led to the destruction of
constitutional intent that legislators shall legislate and not obstruct
legislation. It has also led to the placing
of party loyalty and acquiescence above the duty and responsibility of solving
problems, resolving issues, and taking action to “form a more perfect union,
establish justice, secure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense,
promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves
and our posterity.” The Preamble is not simply
an introduction; it is a statement of intent (“in order to” is the key) for
what the Constitution is meant to accomplish.
Perhaps if this just quoted Preamble had been incorporated
into the oath of office that every congressperson takes, it would have prevented
representatives like my own claiming in public interview before a TV and
Facebook audience, that national security and federal issues are her primary
responsibilities under the Constitution!
Her responsibilities go well beyond that assertion, and are mainly
domestic, according to the Preamble to our Constitution.
There are still, in spite of shifting responsibilities, some
perceptions of what the critical duties of a representative ought to be. The kicker is that the perceptions of
congressional representatives and constituents tend to differ to some
degree. Here are two charts that explain
a survey taken in the 1970s of both representatives in Congress and of their
constituents, as to their perception of representatives’ roles and functions.
Table
1. Roles and Duties of a Member of Congress Identified by Members of the House
of Representatives
Role Duties
and Activities %
Members Identifying
Legislative
Draft/introduce legislation 87
Constituency Service Help constituents solve
problems 79
Educate/Communicate Articulate &take positions on issues;
educate/inform about
legislation 43
Representative Represent/advocate district’s
26
& constituent interests
Political Campaigning
party leadership, and reelection 11
Oversight Determine
laws administered
as Congress intended 9
Institutional Interact
w/ executive branch, 7
interest groups & other
levels
of government
Office Management Oversight
of personal office 6
Everything "Jack-of-all-trades”
6
Other Other
varied expectations 4
Table 2. Jobs, Duties, and Functions
the Public Expects a Member of Congress to Perform
Function % of Public Identifying
Work to solve problems in the district,
help
the people, and respond to the
issues and
needs of the district 37
To represent the people and
district,
and to vote according to the wish of
the majority of
their constituents 35
Keep in contact with the people,
visit the district, know the constituents 17
Find out what the people
need/want/think;
send out polls and questionnaires 12
Attend all or as many sessions as possible;
be there to vote on
legislation 10
Be honest, fair, as truthful as possible,
keep promises, and be of good
character 10
Work on improving the economy, lowering prices
and creating more jobs 10
Don’t know 10
[Source: U.S. Congress, House, Commission
on Administrative Review, Final Report of the Commission on Administrative
Review, H. Doc. 95-272, 95th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1977), vol. 2,
pp. 822-823. a.
Percentages are based on 1,518 public responses].
While there
is obviously some overlap in what each cohort considers to be the most
important roles of Congressional Representatives, there is an equal disconnect
in terms of the main focus for each.
Office holders are more concerned with the roles played in relation to
Congress and their federal and national security orientation, while
constituents put their emphasis on the roles that relate to the home
district. I think this shows clearly a
disconnect that has existed over the last 30 years at least. The author, Eric Petersen, concludes:
“With
no formal or definitive requirements, each Member of Congress is free to define
his or her own job and set his or her own priorities. Although elements of each
of the roles described can be found among the duties performed by any Senator
or Representative, the degree to which each is carried out differs among
Members as they pursue the common goals of seeking reelection, building
influence in Congress, and making good public policy.”
My own
conclusion is quite different:
While there
is something to be said for the ‘freedom’ to define one’s role for oneself in
certain areas, there is, in my opinion, much more to be said for the concept of
political representation as defined at the start of this post. Representation is not something that can be
left solely to the discretion and definition of the representative, because,
first of all, a representative is an agent, a proxy, and a person who stands-in
and stands-up for someone else.
A
representative in the Congress is authorized to act as a law maker, as a
policy-maker, as an advocate for his constituents, as a problem-solver for the
people who elected him. It is highly
questionable, therefore, for the representative to go beyond that role unless
he or she obtains a renewed permission or authorization from his constituents
to do so. Thus, it is highly
questionable that beyond committee assignments (and those should be related to
their value to the district and the voters), representatives should have a free
hand to define their own roles and their relationship to those roles. The very core of meaning for representation lies in the fact that the representative is there as the stand-in or proxy or manifestation of someone else. Losing that core concept is how we got to where we are. We have wrongly allowed congressional representatives to believe that:
1)
they
are their own center of authority so that they do not need to consult their constituents or to
solicit voter authority for what they do beyond the basic delegate
role because
2)
an election victory is the only mandate they need;
3)
it is within their authority to decide issues without the
input of their constituents – of all their constituent groups not
just their base; they do not arrange to hear what their constituents have to
say on the issues; many even ignore what voters say as many have done on gun violence
control and immigration
4)
policies, laws, investigations
and resolutions that have nothing to do with problems, issues or concerns facing their constituents, but are
concocted for reasons other than the representation of their
districts (like self-aggrandizement, party loyalty and personal advancement)
can continue ad nauseum
5)
they do not have to take the time to find out from
their constituents how a particular piece of legislation will affect local lives;
6)
they
do not have to
represent all the people, but only a base of supporters
7)
that
they can put Party, sponsors, congressional committee work, junkets to foreign countries ahead of their
obligation to their home districts and their constituents
8)
they
are worthy of
special treatment and privileges not available to their own
constituents such as free surgery, 200+ health plans from which to choose, or a
great pension after only 5 years of service!
9)
they
can simply
ignore, delay or repeal laws or programs that they deem inappropriate
without any input from those in their districts that it affects or helps
So, let’s get back to basics.
·
Contact
your congressional representative -- or any office-holder – if necessary, remind
them of their status as proxies and stand-ins and advocates.
·
Let them know they have an obligation to hear
your opinion even though you are not part of their base.
·
Ask them to put country ahead of Party.
·
Let them know that you, and others like you
(refer to a particular group if you belong), are tracking their actions closely
and you are letting others (especially the press) know the results of that, so
you need answers
·
Pick
one issue of importance to you and ask for their position on it and then ask
·
What
they plan to do to seek further input from constituents on the issue – will
they hold a Town Hall, a public meeting of any kind, a survey, a face-to-face
meeting with groups related to the issue, door-to-door canvass -- what will
they DO to solicit ideas?
·
If
the representative, or the office staff, refuse to give you an answer to
anything, indicate that you feel unrepresented, and ask just who is she or he
representing on that issue.
·
For
more ideas of approach, consult the www.indivisibleguide.com
TAKE ACTION NOW! Let
your representatives know they are in their office to represent and advocate for
YOU, not for a political Party, for themselves or for some rich sponsor. And let your Rep. know that it is in her/his
best interest to consult with you and others on a regular basis. It is time to educate our elected
representatives to reality: they are not the most important ingredient in this
representative democracy. That
distinction belongs to the People/citizens/voters. It’s time to take back our rightful place! 
