Was it Mark Twain, or perhaps Groucho Marx, who said something along the lines of “The fact that you want to be a senator means that you’re not qualified for the job”?
Let’s imagine that Joe Republican (or Joe Democrat; I don’t care) gets elected to the U.S. House or Senate from his home district. He takes with him to Washington his ideals of fairness, ethics, morality, etc.
[ul]
[li]He won’t accept campaign money from corporations whose business practices he disagrees.[/li][li]He won’t let his campaign donors influence how he votes on particular issues.[/li][li]If a topic comes up and he doesn’t know much about it (say, drilling for oil in ANWR), rather than vote his “party line,” he will head for the Library of Congress, study up on the matter, and vote based on his informed decision.[/li][li]If he has a position on a certain committee, he won’t tie up a certain bill simply because he doesn’t like it, or he doesn’t like its sponsor, or he doesn’t like its sponsor’s party; he’ll judge the bill on its merits and let the full House (or Senate) vote on it.[/li][li]Insert whatever other acts of nobility, fairness and morality here.[/li][/ul]
Now I ask you, how long before such a person gets chewed up and spit out by the machinery of Washington? Two weeks?
Probably the cynic in me, but the machinery would start chewing on him/her well before he/she got elected.
To get elected to Congress, one has to raise a hell of a lot of money, curry favor of those with the political clout to even get you on the ballot, and oh yeah, somehow convince the electorate your worthy of the job. By trying to please so many people, who really have their own self-interests in mind, its probably very difficult to hold to any personal ideals that conflict with those interests. Its almost a natural selection at work: if your ideals conflict with those who have the power to get you elected, you don’t get elected. So what’s a politician to do? You either a) convince them that what you would do is to their benifit (i.e., BS them) or b) sell-out. That’s why it seems all politicians are in the pockets of special interests, because for all intents and purposes, they are; they don’t have a choice. You hold yourself to a high moral superiority that says screw them, you won’t get elected in the first place.
Well, Russ Feingold, junior senator from Wisconsin, exemplifies those characteristics you posit (at least I think he does, others may violently disagree). At any rate, he’s considered a maverick, and he got re-elected (barely) and is respected by his colleagues as a force. He works closely with John McCain on the McCain-Feingold campaign reform bill.
Any cites on how often a Congressperson accepts money from a coporation when they disagree with their business practices?
Unfortunately, it’s not as cut and dried as this. In MOST instances with campaign donors, it isn’t as simple as “I’m giving you money so you do what I tell you.” Usually, the campaign donor will come along later when a bill they care about comes up carrying stacks of studies, graphs, reports, etc. They will then sit down with a member of the Congressperson’s staff (because the Congressperson is probably at a Committee meeting or on the floor) and discuss their point of view and give cites, studies, etc. that show why their way is the best way. Generally very detailed stuff. They will show how this will benefit the Congressperson’s constituency, in their opinion and such.
This is why corporations and business interests tend to get their way. They are the ones that tend to put in the footwork, do the research, make the professional presentations. Most environmental organizations do little of that. That’s generally why they lose…they don’t understand what the hell they are doing. Which brings me to my next subject…
Really? He should? Do you even have any inkling of how many bills in how many subject areas a Congressperson would have to study? PLUS their committees. PLUS their sub-committees. Especially in the Senate. Give me a break.
Not only that, but you have to toe the party line more often than not if you want to get any good committee positions. Without a good committee position, it makes it really hard to serve your constituency.
So if a particular bill is going to have a really negative impact on his constituency, he should just let it go and not do everything in his power to stop it? Give me a break. The Senator from Illinois has no duty to the people of Georgia, except in a general sense. A representative from California’s 46th District has even less duty towards Massachusett’s 3rd District. The Congressperson’s job is to do everything legally in his or her power to protect and help his or her constituents. If he thinks a bill is going to get passed that is going to hurt his constituents, he OUGHT to do what he can to stop it, including killing it in his committee.
Chewed up and spit out by the machinery of Washington? If a Congressperson did what you asked them to, they’d be so stressed and overworked they would have a nervous breakdown within a month. PLUS, since I am assuming that Honest Joe isn’t bringing home any pork, the chances of his getting reelected is next to nothing. Washington wouldn’t have to do anything.
If you want a more accurate look at what goes on, read Fenno’s Home Style: House Members in Their District, Mayhew’s Congress: The Electoral Connection, and any college text on the basic working of Congress…I recommend Davidson and Oleszek’s Congress and Its Members…and for a good inside look read Baker’s House and Senate
Neurotik mentioned a host of good books on Congress, I second pretty much all of them. Congressmen don’t get enough credit. They have to maintain two places of residence, many of them having families, split their time almost evenly between DC and the home district when Congress is in session, have to campaign hard for reelection (even though increasingly through redistricting we’re getting noncompetitive districts, a result of political parity, actually). Bottom line, they have no fucking time to go over to the LoC. That’s why they have underpaid, overworked, alcoholic staffs.
I think your terms for “honesty” are way too narrow. It’s also important to note that many people give money because these people already hold their views. If you say you’re pro-environment and have a decent chance at winning, you’ll get a big fat check from LCV and the Sierra Club, and possibly even issue ads. Now, you’re already going to vote the way these guys want you to, money or no money. Does taking that check make you evil?
There are many people in both parties who are honorable. Many are sacrificing lucrative private sector opportunities in order to serve their country. Many end up divorced because of their experience, they’ll have their lives dragged through the mud, and they’ve got to put up with people who’ll criticize them for the smallest thing.
Furthermore, you single out corporations in your OP. Candidates of both parties (mostly Dems though) accepted contributions from the Teamsters, and I doubt they’d agree with what was going on over there.
If you ever meet people in Congress, it doesn’t seem like Washington changes their ideology much. The biggest difference is often in the method in which they achieve their goals. Most become more willing to work with each other. If you think that that’s the “Washington machinery” so be it.
I should also mention that environmentalists generally bring nothing to the table but aggrivation. Corporations bring new jobs and new taxes to the state. This is generally viewed as a positive things. Environmentalists generally make recomendations like “don’t build that harbor”, “don’t dig that mine”, “don’t build on those wetlands”. With enough agrivation, the companies will simply take thir business elsewhere. People generally want their senators to make decisions that don’t drive jobs out of the state.
There are many people in both parties who are honorable. Many are sacrificing lucrative private sector opportunities in order to serve their country. Many end up divorced because of their experience, they’ll have their lives dragged through the mud, and they’ve got to put up with people who’ll criticize them for the smallest thing.
The appetite for scandal on the part of the press or the public makes it difficult for a person, that has made normal mistakes to get elected. The press reports on family issues as well. I think this kind of scrutiny prevents capable, service-oriented people,from choosing this career path. I mean, it would be nice if we could set some ground rules that would prevent this from happening but at the same time, not allow the truly “twisted” candidates to be elected. Maybe I am a cynic but I am suspicious of people that are just soooooooo damned perfect. I do think that many quality people choose to not seek this kind of government career because some guy from the paper is going to make a headline out of the fact that you attended a party and smoked a joint. I can’t imagine having every aspect of my life made public.:eek: