Here in Cleveland we’ve just finished the primary election season and Congressman Dennis Kucinich survived against opponent who said that he spent too much time running for president and not enough being a congressman. One of the arguments against him was, “He hasn’t had one piece of legislation passed in X years” or something like that.
It struck me that that is a silly measuring stick for any person in the legislature. Its not like they are a factory, that they should be evaluated on producing statutes the way an assembly line is evaluated for producing cars. Moreover, as we all know from Saturday morning TV “I’m just a bill”, enacting a statute is a group effort, not an individual one. That being the case, and given all the many and sundry duties that a congressman has, how should they be fairly evaluated?
That’s a fair statement. It would also be fair on a micro level for a given person to have a negative opinion of a congressman who disagrees with him about a vital issue. For instance, I suspect that Bricker has a negative opinion of Kucinich on just about everything other than about motherhood and apple pie, and that is completely appropriate for him, given Bricker’s viewpoint as opposed to Dennis’.
Alaskas Stevens brings huge amounts of money to his state. Much of it is wasting tax payers money. But as long as he keeps the money coming many Alaskans feel he is doing the job.
It also depends on the level of lawmaker we are talking about. At the Federal level, I respect the snot out of our senior Senator, even though her politics and mine diverge wildly. But I think she takes her job very seriously, and has the best interests of the United States first, and California second, at heart. Her gravitas is something that is often lacking in Congress these days. Voting yea or nay on some bill can be more influential than writing one.
OTOH, I expect my State Assemblycritter to work tirelessly to make my life better on a micro-level. Even more so my City Council and Mayor. I have no problem calling any of them at the drop of a chapeau about all sorts of sub-micro stuff.
I would give this a “yahbut” because there is a big exception to that.
A Congressperson, in either House, is supposed to act in the best interests of the United States of America. On occasion, this will involve taking a stand unpopular with his constituents, because it is the best thing for the country as a whole.
Further, I don’t vote for Bob Etheridge (my Congressman, and a pretty good one) to express my views in Washington. I vote for him to express the views that I would have if I were there, informed of matters the N&O and Channel 5 don’t include in their coverage or which are available to him but not to me for national security reasons, taking a look at what people in California, Montana, New Jersey, and Maine may need, etc. – to do the job of being an informed and thoughtful representative. “That’s why he gets the big bucks.”
A congresscritter who is nothing but a mouthpiece for his constituents’ prejudices (conservative or liberal, North vs. South, blue states vs. heartland, whatever) is a waste of space. Give me a man who occasionally says something I disagree with passionately, but says it because he’s willing to take a stand, even at the cost of popularity, for something he has studied and believes to be the best course for the country.
Incorrect. A representative is EXPECTED to act in the best interests of their constituants and a senator is EXPECTED to act in the best interests of state.
