Whispers in the Wasteland

Responsiveness of Politicians

First posted at GIGO

I believe that the responsiveness of not only California, but other States as well, will be improved regardless of the winner of the election. To put the incumbents on notice that they are not immune is better done with recall elections than revolutions. Either way, such notice serves a valuable purpose. Our Founders knew that, but in the intervening years, some people have forgotten.
--BartB

When, I first read Bart's post yesterday, I thought that he made a very good point. It is important that politicians understand the wishes of their constituency. But upon a more sober reflection (at least I hope so), I thought that maybe the politicians are too responsive. We all know a metaphor for democracy is three foxes and a chicken deciding what's for dinner. Governor Davis created the California debt by handing out goodies to his constituency. When energy price caps threatened to wipe out California power, he intervened with government money without giving much thought that higher prices might actually reduce energy demand. Now that his term is threatened, he has been signing the most liberal of bills in the hopes of propping up his liberal base.

In George Will's book, Restoration, Mr. Will identifies the major reason why there is such a low turnover rate in Congress: pork. Indeed, stretching back to 1994, when I was debating the merits of Mitt Romney over Senator Kennedy -- and the drunkard that the senator was then -- liberals were unabashed in their reasons for support, "he brings home the bacon." (I did point out that the state of Massachusetts actually paid more in taxes than it got back from the federal government.)

Pork is an expression of responsiveness. Promise them that you'll get more money for schools, for dams and bridges, that you'll keep the military base protecting that golf course operational. As the GOP quickly discovered after 1994, the debate can be easily framed around what is being taken away -- hence the loosening of brakes against entitlements. George Bush, having never met a domestic battle he'd wish to fight, has happily grown the government to liberal dismay -- they can't make demands fast enough!

The hope of the Founders was that with republican government we might distance ourselves from the passions of the moment. They hoped that a wise elite would be selected to represent people in the national government (senators and presidents were not directly elected). They deliberately designed a government with checks and balances to put roadblocks against responsiveness. Otherwise they could have chosen a unicameral parliament that would form the executive branch and select the judicial branch.

In Restoration, George Will summarizes a portion of Edmund Burke's speech after winning the election to represent Bristol in Parliament. I'll provide a little more of that speech than Mr. Will quoted:

Certainly, Gentlemen, 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 judgement, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you; to any man, or to any sett 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 judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

No doubt, as George Will guesses, there were quite a few audience members who thought, "Oh, now he tells us!"

Later in his speech, Burke continues:

Parliament is not a Congress of Ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an Agent and Advocate, against other Agents and Advocates; but Parliament is a deliberative Assembly of one Nation, with one Interest, that of the whole; where, not local Purposes, not local Prejudices ought to guide, but the general Good, resulting from the general Reason of the whole. You chuse a Member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not Member of Bristol, but he is a Member of Parliament.

Indeed, our public servants our tasked with more than just representing our interests and responsiveness, they have an obligation to the welfare of the whole. Gray Davis, other politicians, and their constituencies should take note of that.