On Thursday, 16 August 2012, CNN.com carried an opinion piece titled, "Can we fix a hyper-partisan Congress?" It was written by a former Congressman, Mickey Edwards. He served in Congress for 16 years then lost his bid for re-election because of redistricting: "In most states, candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives run in districts shaped by partisan leaders for party advantage, regardless of the effect on the rights of the people to be represented by somebody familiar with their concerns and interests." He goes on to explain, "That's how I, a city dweller with no rural experience, found myself representing farmers, ranchers and small town merchants...." How did it happen? "...a legislature dominated by a different party redrew my district...to strengthen their party...."
Here is a former Congressman who was effectively forced out merely for the partisan advantage of one party. Just a side note, I find it interesting that he, and those retiring from Congress, somehow find the ethical fortitude to help us really understand the self-serving nature of our political process, especially since they have nothing at stake and will no longer personally benefit from a system they operated in and supported.
Edwards provides insights on how the cultural aspects of the partisan divide are reinforced in Congress: "Just as Republicans must drink their coffee, read their newspapers and slurp their soup in a room off the House floor, and Democrats do their reading, drinking and eating in a different room, members of the two parties must speak from different places using different microphones positioned as an extension of their own side of the partisan divide." Earlier in his comments he described that there are separate podiums on the House floor facing the Democratic or Republican sides of the chamber from which D and R members speak respectively.
Edwards laments: "It surprises me still to hear people express amazement at the hyper-partisan nature of Congress and its resulting inability to deal collectively with the nation's problems. In a constitutional system that places most of the federal government's real power with the people's representatives, that is a serious problem."
He goes on to emphasize how our political culture contributes to Congress' "inability to deal collectively with the nation's problems:" "But it's not an accident. It's a direct result of the systems we've created to choose those representatives and the way Congress itself has been allowed to develop not as a single body of Americans but as a pit of rival power-seeking clubs to do battle." Notice he says "the systems we've created," and what has "been allowed to develop." Whose at fault? Basically all the stakeholders in the political process because we all help to maintain the political status quo. Consequently, Congress has become "a pit of rival power-seeking clubs to do battle."
What do they do battle over? They battle to be the majority party in Congress. And, why do they engage in battles to be the majority party? As Edwards points out, power. The majority party in Congress is the party in power. The leadership of the majority party holds the reins of that power. Consequently, the partisan interests of the parties and the self-serving interests of the parties' leadership supersede the need to "deal collectively with the nation's problems." And what is the result? As Edwards pointed out, "In a constitutional system that places most of the federal government's real power with the people's representatives, that is a serious problem."
To achieve credible change you and I must shake up the political status quo. You and I must change our patterns of thinking and behaving and stop being unwitting accomplices in the battles Edwards describes. If Congress suffers from an "inability to deal collectively with the nation's problems," then you and I must change Congress. The Constitution provides the solution, frequent elections. You and I must force rotation in office through the elective process. It is counter to the interests of the parties or their leadership to affective change themselves, so you and I must.
For the complete article please refer to:
Edwards, Mickey (2012). "Can we fix a hyper-partisan Congress?" CNN.com Thursday, 16, 2012. Retrieved from:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/16/opinion/edwards-congress-partisans/index.html?hpt=op_r1
