December 21, 2009 08:35 AM UTC
One key requirement of "Representative" Government
3 Comments- by: DavidThi808
I think one absolutely critical requirement for our government to function is for our representatives to listen to the voters. To all of them. Without this ongoing feedback our elected officials become a body divorced from the people, swayed primarily by the few who have access to them. When that happens we lose something precious and vital about what makes America work.
It is true that we were initially designed as a Republic where the President and Senators were elected indirectly. But from the beginning the House was elected directly. And the assumption, and practice, from the beginning was that all of our elected officials were accessible to anyone. Through all of the 1800’s most anybody could talk to the President if they wanted to.
Why is this so important? A couple of reasons:
- Without constant ongoing feedback from the voters, all the voters, it is impossible for an elected official to represent us. Yes they can read the polls, run surveys, get summations of incoming letters. That has a minimal impact compared to interacting with the voters. Direct two-way communication is essential – both for the politician and for their constituents. The impact on constituents is every bit as important as the impact on the officeholder.
- This shows us if the individual will fight for us. Someone who is afraid to discuss issues with people that might disagree with them is not going to slug it out in the sausage factory. When Tom Tancredo ran away from a news discussion when asked a single snarky question by Markos, he made it painfully clear that he does not have the intestinal fortitude to actually accomplish anything in office.
- Clear concise answers to hard questions is where the rubber meets the road. All politicians love to say lower taxes, more services, and a balanced budget. If they are not confronted with the hard questions, that is all we’ll hear (from both sides). Only when we push do we learn how they will actually solve the issues we face. Because in the triangle of lower taxes, more services, and a balanced budget – you get to pick two.
And it’s not just this one issue. On question after question, God is in the details. Want to address illegal immigration? Great. How do you better seal the border? How do you reduce the economic rewards to foreigners and Americans for breaking the law? What is the appropriate number of guest workers and what are the requirements for them? The list goes on – and only by asking do we see if someone has answers or is just hot air.
- G.W. Bush showed us the danger of having a leader who lives in a bubble surrounded by yes-(wo)men. True interaction with people who disagree with you is uncomfortable and can cause political problems. However, it’s the only way to have your ideas face critical scrutiny. And when that scrutiny is avoided, you end up with minor problems like the Iraq War.
What’s also interesting is that when it comes to the hard questions, most voters across the political spectrum have the same questions. We will differ in what answer we prefer, but we all want to find out where a candidate stands on these core issues. There are not questions from the left and other questions from the right – there are questions from all the voters.
We’re in a world of hurt right now. At the federal level we still have a horrendous problem with jobs & the economy. We need to address the intertwined mess of energy/foreign oil/global warming. We’re fighting two hot wars as well as the more difficult nebulous global war on terror. Healthcare will remain a major problem, even if (especially if according to some) the bill is passed. The list of major problems goes on.
And at the state level we face the issue of declining revenues in a time of increased demand for services. When the federal stimulus funds end next year, we stop funding higher ed (thereby devastating our future). We have a financial convoluted straitjacket in our constitution that is driving us off a cliff. And our K-12 educational system (as is true in every other state) is a disaster that presently insures that China, India, and others will surpass us, leaving us a 2nd world country.
We need to determine if the people asking for our vote have what it takes to address these problems. That means we have individuals who will talk to us, will answer the hard questions, and give us answers that lead us to believe they can resolve these issues.
Lets first look at who fails on this count – Representative Lamborn and Senator Udall (at least they can take joy in their bi-partisan issuing of the middle finger to the voters). They both reside in their fortress of solitude, venturing forth only to cast votes and ask for donations. Senator Udall tries to fake it, by making surprise visits to public groups that his team has swept to insure that he will hear no disagreeable opinion – and then issuing a press release about his “public meeting.” Even if we like their votes, that doesn’t mean they represent us.
Now let’s look at those who embrace the concept of interacting with the voters. That doesn’t mean they go talk to every single voter, as there are not enough hours in the day, and many voters have no interest. But it does mean town halls, talking to a wide range of press, bloggers, issue groups etc – and not just the ones that like you. By far the best example of this is Representative Polis. When the town hall craziness occurred in August, Jared scheduled more town halls because he saw it as a chance to talk to more voters.
Second is Ken Buck. I sat down with him one time to ask him a bunch of question. I was worried that he would get mad at me, or refuse to give me real answers. What occurred was that on every single question he calmly gave me a clear detailed answer. It went so smoothly I re-read the questions after it was over to make sure they were “hard-hitting.” Ken views questions as a chance to tell the voters where he stands.
Third is Governor Ritter. In my Q&A with the Governor it was scheduled for ½ hour and he kept it going for an hour – and then apologized that he had to go to his next event. Yet on many of the questions I asked, Bill Ritter was clearly not pleased that the issue was coming up again. But when Bill Ritter is unhappy about being asked on an issue – he responds by giving you full detail as to what & why. Again, someone who insures that the voters knows where he stands.
I do not mean to denigrate others by not listing them. Most of our top elected officials, to a greater or lesser degree, do talk with a full cross-section of voters, press, bloggers, etc. We are better off from this interaction and they do their job better due to this interaction.
But for those challenging the incumbents, I think it is imperative that we insist that they do the same. If in the campaign they avoid those that might subject them to an uncomfortable question, how on earth can they do a competent job when elected? I’m not asking if I will agree with them, I’m asking the more basic issue of simple competence regardless of political philosophy. If a candidate is incapable of performing the job well, does their politics matter much?
And by the same token, if a candidate will not give a real answer to the fundamental questions that voters across the spectrum want answered, do they stand for anything? If they don’t stand for anything, we don’t know what we will get. A person who will say anything to get elected, will do anything once they are in office. I’ve voted for Republicans before, rarely because I agreed with them, but generally because I will take a principled conservative over an opportunistic liberal.
My concern is that many (not all!) of the challengers in this state are trying to give vague answers, avoid challenging forums, and generally slide in to office without ever standing for anything. This does not serve the state well, it does not treat the voters with respect, and it is not representative government. Or to give a more specific example, how effective a Governor can Scott McInnis be if he’s afraid to answer questions from press & bloggers who don’t adore him? What approach will he take as Governor if he will not answer the basic questions that voters from the far right to the left want an answer to?
We’re in a world of hurt and in ’10 I am not voting straight Democratic – I am voting in each race for the person who I think will best help us get out of this mess. That person is not the one with a nice smile, but no willingness to fight and unable to articulate what they stand for.
A very good diary on a very important and under-appreciated element of our democratic republic.
I think the larger question is this: How should a representative balance and decide which way to vote on a particular question? If it is simply to cast a vote for whatever the majority of their constituents say they want, the representative does not matter–it could be anyone. Or should it be whatever the representative believes on the question at hand? In which case voters have no say once the representative has been elected. My personal view is that representatives should generally follow the will of the voters they represent, but must have the discretion and fortitude to break from that when circumstances require.
As to why challengers so often speak in generalities, the short answer is obvious–whatever it takes to get elected. Speaking in generalities also makes it more difficult to oppose someone and to hold them to their campaign “promises” if elected.
The bottom line is that there is no upside to a candidate giving direct answers to hard questions, especially on questions dealing with specific policies. The more specific things become the more likely the specific answer will either be wrong or moot.
I see two large problems. The first is the sheer expanse of government, and how it continues to grow. It has become just too large and imposing for most people to confront, let alone to consider as a possible source of help–a supreme irony given that the growth of government is almost always justified as being to help people.
The second is the perceived lack of transparency into much of governmental functioning–the most recent back-room dealings around the health care effort being the best and most recent example. A lot of people would be outraged at some of the provisions in the current Senate bill (yeah, I know it has not passed yet) but they have no idea that they are there. Then, later, when one of those provisions comes up, in the news or however, people ask how that could have happened.
An example closer to Colorado was the effort to exempt state legislators’ emails from CORA, mainly because someone was embarrassed when their emails were obtained and published. In my view, EVERYTHING a state legislator (or, indeed, state employee) does, says, writes, emails, meets with, etc., in the performance of their function should be open to the public.
Where does this come from? It seems rather doubtful to me.
http://www.historycooperative….