My personal blog-reading strategy is to cycle around, subscribing to any individual blog for a while in my newsreader and then dropping it after a while. You can’t read everything. So I used to read Matthew Yglesias, but haven’t been recently. I clearly need to start again, because this (via Brad DeLong) is extremely smart and powerful.
I’ve come to be increasingly baffled by the high degree of cynicism and immorality displayed in big-time politics. For example, Senators who genuinely do believe that carbon dioxide emissions are contributing to a global climate crisis seem to think nothing of nevertheless taking actions that endanger the welfare of billions of people on the grounds that acting otherwise would be politically problematic in their state. In other words, they don’t want to do the right thing because their self-interest points them toward doing something bad. But it’s impossible to imagine these same Senators stabbing a homeless person in a dark DC alley to steal his shoes. And what’s more, the entire political class would be (rightly!) shocked and appalled by the specter of a Senator murdering someone for personal gain. Yet it’s actually taken for granted that “my selfish desires dictate that I do x” constitutes a legitimate reason to do the wrong thing on important legislation.
It is kind of a mystery. Why is it a heinous crime for one individual to act directly against another, but business as usual for a powerful politician to act knowingly in ways that will bring harm to the nation or the world? Is it just that one death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic?
The elected representatives do not necessarily have to vote as their constituents would. What happens when there is a very complicated issue up for vote and his constituents are divided? Should he/she split the vote?
Representative democracy works like this: you elect the ‘best’ person to represent your broad interests and hope that this person, once elected, makes the best decisions for the benefit of the entire population represented, even if some of them may not have voted for him/her.
Now, in practice, individual constituents do not have as much influence as the corporations that spend enormous amounts of money to influence politicians to do their bidding. Look at what is happening with health care: the majority of the US population agrees that health care is a problem and that something has to be done. However, the greatest obstacle seems to be the enormous economic interests of very powerful corporations that want to keep things as they are. The greater good is being trumped by the benefit to a small segment of the population.
I come from a third world country and my impression is this: here in the US there is perhaps as much corruption as where I come from. Here, however, things are more ‘complicated’ and thus the fact that a few groups can have much more say than the general population when it comes to the way a politician votes is not corruption at all, it is just how things work in ‘politics’.
It’s a case of a million being a statistic.
How many millions of human beings has the US killed since the end of WWII? How many millions of civilians? None of it in “self-defense”. We roam the world at will committing mass slaughter and nobody (domestic) cares.
rww — you, sir, are an idiot.
I agree that the comparison is very naive and that the primary duty of representatives is to represent their constituents.
Gadfly, why?
Here, Gadfly, 400,000 from Agent Orange alone in Vietnam. 500,000 children with birth defects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange
Although it derails the topic Rww’s last post is a statistic.
The problem with most democracies is that, rather than electing the people who would best serve as legislators, governors, etc., we elect the people who are best _at getting elected_.
To quote Churchill:
“Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
Do you think a politician is responsible for their entire nation or world? In our country, the only people that matter to the politician are the people who vote for or against him. So a Senator is only answerable to the people in his state. A Representative responsible for his district. Even if one takes the ever changing IPCC projections at face value (I personally don’t, but that doesn’t matter here), it’s possible that controls on CO2 emissions would harm more of his constituents than help. To take it a step further, do you think a politician should vote by his own beliefs or on the beliefs of his constituents? Our system forces politicians to lean toward acting in agreement with his constituents.
Another issue to consider is, are we all responsible for everyone else? I don’t really think so. Our society and financial system sure isn’t based on that concept. It’s wrong for me to steal money from another person. That’s a direct action against them. What if that person is rich and I give it to a homeless person on the street? Is it wrong for me to vote to increase taxes? That’s still taking money from certain people. That’s an indirect action though. Is it wrong for me to take someone’s money at a poker game? There it’s a direct action, but the person on the other side was a willing participant in it. There’s no right or wrong answer here. Everyone’s got their own beliefs and will answer those questions differently.
Didn’t I read somewhere that Founding Fathers anticipated this close attachment of representatives to their constituency and imagined senators to be somewhat above that?
Roman: I’m not sure, but it doesn’t really matter. Ideals are good and all, but they will give way to the practicallity of keeping one’s job. That’s why checks and balances have to be built into the system. The check here is that the people get to vote for politician. The only way ideals will matter is if a politician’s contituents hold him to those ideals. It seems that nowadays, most people just vote for their political party or whomever’s name they see on TV the most. These are flaws we have to live with in our political system. At least it is the peoples’ failure when the system becomes corrupt rather than an specific individual or powerful group.
Psychologically, the answer is easy. Guilt is diffused over tons of people. This behavior is expected. And Senators won’t admit the necessary part – that they believe its a true problem.
Yglesias has a completely appropriate analogy. The argument that’s bubbling up is simply that he has a higher moral calling – representing his constituents. The problem is that our system of government is set up with the opposite intent – that the leaders would make an independent judgment on what is good for the country.
That’s why there is no national referendum system. That’s why there is a minimum Congressional district size but not a maximum. That’s why we indirectly elect the President (initially, electors were supposed to be that you voted for the smartest guy you knew, and let him decide who to cast your electoral vote for), and why the founders had us indirectly elect Senators.
Or to put it in modern context – especially for the Republicans in the crowd – if representatives are supposed to vote our preferences instead of their own, why did the flip-flop charge stick against Kerry? After all, changing his vote when it is politically convenient would be an advantage if he was a representative.
I don’t normally think of Edmund Burke as a political soulmate, but his famous remarks to the electors of Bristol seem appropriately nuanced here:
“…it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”
Focusing on the “self-interest” of Senators is inappropriate and highly misleading here. A Senator effectively has a contract to represent the desires of the population that elected him or her, and the promise of continued employment exists as an incentive for the Senator to honor that contract.
…
So a Senator is only answerable to the people in his state.So a Senator is only answerable to the people in his state.
/…
The senator’s job is to vote the way his constituents would vote, if they were present, and had time to read the bill, etc..
For the record: Senators do not, have not, and will not, represent people. They represent their states, solely in the interest of other states, as a means to create a measure of justice in the exercise of legislative power between those states with large populations and those with much smaller ones. Thus the reason there are two Senators from every state. Now, a US Senator is a very powerful human being in the scale of world political power. One would hope (wishful thinking) that Senators actually assumed the mantle of the role to which they aspired. This is not the case; as the costs of campaigns increase, the 100 Senators become more beholden to the specific interests of those who fund their campaigns. Only a very few people actually have the requisite disposable wealth to do so, and thus receive the full attention of each Senator.
Suppose, for example you are from Texas, which houses the international headquarters of the oil industry. One can be pretty damn sure (check out Opensource.org if you doubt) that Texas Senators represent what is best for oil and energy, no matter what that may mean to the citizens of the State.
That’s why there is a minimum Congressional district size but not a maximum.
Actually it is the other way around. The US Census determines a total number of citizens in the US, which is divided by 435 (not including the exception of those territories whose constituent populations receive non-voting representation in Congress). The outcome of that number is the “size of districts” given the norm, which is subtracted by the number of states that have less than that number of citizens per district {norm} (thus the minimum district size equals the number of citizens within each state that fall below the original quotient), and the remaining sum is then again divided by the remaining number of available representatives. That determines the total number of representatives by number of states allotted. Congress then sets the apportionment for number of districts across the states that dramatically exceed the quotient of the second equation. Because of the Constitutionally mandated limit of 435 voting representatives, some states (such as CA) will have much higher number of people per district than other states with lower populations.
This why the next 2010 election is so damned important at the state level, in that it determines the legislative bent along the political spectrum as to who gets to define the gerrymandering of those precious Congressional districts. Once Congress notifies the states as to how many representatives they will have in the 2012 Congress, the states have about a year to redesign and realign the districts according to the wishes of the controlling political party.
And you thought physics was complicated.
I thought the dynamics behind democratic politics is very clear: the first rule is survival. You won’t get a chance to influence major legislation or to vote on it, unless you first get elected and then re-elected. The making of good but unpopular policy must fit in within this constraint.
I think Obama touched upon this theme in his “The Audacity of Hope”.
well, that’s democracy for you. i am always baffled by the common misconception that elected representatives should do anything else than just representing the wish of people who elected them. and if it is the will of these people to act stupidly, then it is the obligation of their representative to do so for them. case closed.
Obviously there are different opinions on what the job of representatives is about. Are there any laws which explicitly define such matters?
@Spyder,
“That’s why there is a minimum Congressional district size but not a maximum.
Actually it is the other way around. The US Census determines a total number of citizens in the US,”
Spyder,
You misunderstand me. Congress’ size is determined by law Congress can change. That doesn’t really reflect on whether they should vote their conscience or the people’s will. My point was that the Constitution sets a minimum district size (no smaller than 30,000 people) but not a maximum size. The reason was to increase the independence of the representative from the people, so that he could vote his will.
@Arrow,
No, there is no explicit definition.
Yes Joe… i did get that. My point was that the states with the least population are still entitled to a single representative regardless of the size of their population (even if, for some reason, Rhode Islands population were to drop below 30k). We elect our representatives ostensibly to REPRESENT our views, not their own, as citizens of the district, within a state, from which they were elected. We fail ourselves and our democracy if we don’t hold them accountable for that responsibility; they are public servants not leaders. That those issues have been muddled and confused to the point of you having to ask your question speaks volumes about the failure of this nation to uphold its precepts. If a representative feels the need to “vote their conscience” rather than represent the will of the people by whom s/he were elected, then it behooves them to come to their district and explain that directly. Failing to do so is an abdication of their responsibilities. We, the people, need to make greater concerted efforts to hold our public servants more accountable for their actions.
Maybe we should pass a Constitutional Amendment that changes the name from the House of Representatives to the House of Masters????
Killing one person is murder. Killing millions is politics-as-usual.
Came across a comment once regarding the holocaust to the effect that it wasn’t about 6 million being killed – it was about murder being committed 6 million times.
Quite frankly, I don’t think politicians are that much different from the average person.
We’re all likely to behave differently when it’s our ox being gored.
“Obviously there are different opinions on what the job of representatives is about. Are there any laws which explicitly define such matters?!”
I don’t know about the US, but in Germany, the constitution states that a member of
Parliament has his conscience as the SOLE arbiter on how to vote. That is, of the three
choices (what the representative prefers, what the majority of those who voted for him
prefer, what would be best for the majority of those who elected him), one is singled out as
the SOLE determinant of how a representative should vote.
I don’t agree with that. It’s a typical case of a law which was well meant when it was
written, but isn’t a good choice today. One rarely knows one’s representative personally. As
the name says, a representative’s job is to represent. Just because he got elected doesn’t
mean he should be able to do what he wants; he has a job. (A strict interpretation of the
rule could be that a representative could vote opposite to what he promised during the
campaign, or randomly, or by listening to Sean Carroll—anything he can justify as
“dictated by his conscience”.) The obvious choice is that a representative should vote for
what the majority of those who elected him would vote for. In general, I think this is true,
but one of the reasons we have representatives, and indeed division of labour generally,
is that the issues are often complex. I would prefer to vote for someone I trust (whether or
not I know him personally) and hope that he acts in my best interests, even if it might be
contrary to what I would personally choose on the spur of the moment (perhaps not knowing
the complexity of the issues involved). When the representative feels that A is best for
those who voted for him, but knows that most of those would vote for B, he should explain
why A is better than B.
This conjures up the image of a representative as someone who votes according to some
algorithm. In practice, few representatives will often vote against their own beliefs, since
even if they see themselves as true representatives, part of politics is arguing for a certain
point of view, and this is difficult if one doesn’t in fact hold that point of view.
In practice, in Germany (and presumably in many other countries, but probably not in
two-party systems where the role of the party is minimal), representatives vote according
to the position of the party (which I agree with, since I voted for a party, and not for
someone I don’t even know personally), from their point of view because they know that if
they adopt the “I vote solely according to my conscience” stance the party will not choose
them as a candidate in the next election. Only in exceptional cases, when there is no clear
party position and/or where the division in opinion cuts across party lines, do the parties
formally say “vote your conscience”.
I can’t believe I’m doing this, but I have to stand up (a little) for the politicians on this one.
To suggest that there are clear-cut moral stands on every, or even most issues, is probably not right. It’s possible to agree on principle and disagree on process, or timing, or priorities. There are different cost-benefit equations at work all the time. That’s the first thing.
The second matter is the question of who owns policy: The voters or the politicians? Yeah, sure, at election time it’s clearly the voters, but then there’s all that time between those elections.
There are 2 views of management theory and they both have some merit. One is that you hire the manager (politician) based upon their knowledge and judgement and you trust them to make decisions based upon that (wisdom). You take the good with the bad on this one because sometimes that manager is going to disagree with you. However I believe that textbook management theory generally says this is the better management technique.
The other theory is that you hire a manager to directly represent you. They do not make policy, they implement it. In this system if a policy mistake is made you should logically own that mistake, not the manager. Textbook management theory generally frowns on this system because it’s something of a micromanagement environment. However some organizations successfully implement this system.
I have heard several posters here claim that representing their constituents wishes is the politician’s sole duty, but do we really want that? Are we sure we know what the voters wishes are on every issue? We can measure it to be sure but then we risk becoming a poll-driven society and there are lots of people who decry that as a failure of backbone and spirit.
I’d suggest that a “responsible cynicism” might be arrived at if you detected flip-flopping between the two different management systems, with no apparent goal except achieving personal gains.
My concern is that most citizens who are cynical don’t care how policy they don’t agree with was arrived at. They disagree with the policy and get jaded with all politicians. Under these circumstances, who is the greater negative force, the political class or the citizens? Who was it who said that the people get the government they deserve?
There’s a real problem with the political world I think, and that’s the notion that literally everything is negotiable. I suspect that most people would like to have a politician with some center, some stable core that is not negotiable. Yet if that belief system is too “large” then you’ll have an inflexible leader who may refuse deals that would benefit themselves and their constituents. And I suspect that a political animal for whom everything is negotiable, can have a long and fruitful career, bending to every wind of change that comes along.
Hmmmmm.