His district is close to mine. My parents probably voted for him along with a most of their neighbors. His district is disproportionately heavy with seniors. They’ll probably applaud him for what he did. I’m not sure enough of his constituents will be “NOT pleased” enough to bounce him out.
I disagree with MacArthur on just about everything, but I also have to give him credit for that meeting. I am in his district, and the meeting was in my old hometown. He knew he would get a hostile reception there, and he stood there and took it and engaged the mob for 5 hours. I believe there was at least some give and take amidst all the yelling, and if so, I would call it a good meeting.
Unless he changes, then the only thing he has shown the people that voted for him is that he doesn’t give a flying fuck what they say, and that he is confident that they can be manipulated into voting for him again.
It is up to his voters to be satisfied or not. At least he goes out there and faces them, so they KNOW he’s unrepentant. If more people disagree AND show up to vote for someone else he’ll be out. If not then they’re getting the congressbeing they deserve.
But you overlook (or disagree with) the intentional design choices of the Framers. The House of Representatives is full of elected officials whose primary focus is their own constituencies. That’s why they have constituencies, in fixed Congressional districts. It’s the Senators that represent the larger points of view, but they’re supposed to represent the interests of their respective states.
With all of that said, I find it curiously appropriate that the origin of a quaint one-word name for what we now call “fake news” comes from exactly the phenomenon you’re complaining about:
So I guess, in a way, your observation is justifiable. Individual Representatives often wind up spouting and supporting bunkum to play up to their specific constituencies, and the Nation’s interests take a back set if necessary. :dubious: