Nov
9
On Representation
November 9, 2009 | 1 Comment
So, anything happen this weekend? I guess not – it’s not like the US Congress ever conducts business on the weekends.
Oh, I guess there was that vote (or pair of votes). I’m sure Harry Reid is just thrilled.
Honestly, I don’t think it’s time to get too worked up. There’s no way this version of the bill passes the Senate, so we have a long way to go yet. But there is one aspect of this worth commenting on.
The lone Republican to vote with Nancy Pelosi was Joseph Cao, who represents the Louisiana district formerly represented by William Jefferson, who is now facing jail time. The district is majority black, so Cao is facing a difficult re-election. Quin Hilyer comes to Cao’s defense here. He notes that Cao said he’d vote for the health care reform bill if a pro-life amendment passed, and that he’s otherwise been a strong voice against Communism and for the right to life. Then Quin adds:
He also represents a district that is fundamentally liberal. Congressmen have two roles: they are delegates, meaning their voters delegate to them the ability to use their judgment on complicated policy matters; and they are representatives, meaning they are there, specifically, to represent the will of their constituents. Serving in Congress is often a balancing act: When your district slightly favors one course of action but you strongly favor the opposite, you do what you believe and try to explain to your constituents why you bucked their wishes. That is being a delegate. But when you are ambivalent about an issue, even slightly against a course of action but only slightly, and your constituents STRONGLY favor the course of action, then your responsibility is to accurately reflect — to REPRESENT — the will of your constituents and vote in favor.
Sorry, no. First of all, if you are ambivalent about a major piece of legislation, then you need to find another line of work. After months of debate, the Hamlet act doesn’t fly.
More importantly, a representative’s primary job is to represent the best interests of his or her constituents, not mindlessly vote the way 50% + one of them would have you vote. This gets to the heart of the debate about the definition of representation, and while I concede that an elected representative ought to listen to his constituent’s concerns, he is supposed to be better informed about the issues than those who sent him there. That’s certainly the theory held by those who framed the Constitution and who wrote all those essays I have been commenting on. If a certain bill would have disastrous consequences for the people you represent, then you have an absolute obligation to vote down the legislation even if 90 percent of them disagree with you. They will have the opportunity to vent their frustration with your choice at a later date.
Which brings me to another point. We’ve heard about all those Blue Dog Democrats and how concerned they are about voting for something which will lead to their defeat next November. Well, if you happen to think that health care reform is vital for the future of the Nation, and this is potentially a magical cure-all that will transform the country for the better, then aren’t you obligated to vote for this piece of legislation? If you go down to defeat at the next election, so what? Is being an elected member of Congress so important to you that you will defy your better judgment all for the purposes of perpetually being re-elected? Are you so hard up for cash that you treat your position not as a public service, but as a paid permanent mode of employment?
That leads to something that I’ve always lamented, and that’s the modern notion that representation is a semi-permanent thing. A true representative would think not of his re-election but of serving the best the interests of his constituents. But with the modern class of politicians obsessed with returning to DC every two years, doing the right thing becomes a secondary (at best) consideration. So if you’re a Democrat who thinks this reform package is the bees knees, then vote for the darned thing, whatever the consequences. And if you’re a Republican who knows that this will bankrupt the country, then you must vote against, even if it means – HORRORS! – losing the next election.
Perhaps Cao did what he thought was best for his constituents. Based on his record, I think he might actually have been motivated by doing what he thought right and not by a desire to be re-elected. My issues here are with Quin Hilyer’s ideas on representation. And again, if Joseph Cao is as much of a neophyte as Quin describes him as being, then he should just remove himself from all future votes of this magnitude.
Addendum: I realized after I hit publish that I was a bit unfair to Quin. In his post he clearly acknowledges the “delegation” aspect of representation, but the wording of my comments made it appear that he did not. I still disagree with him on his assessment of Cao, but I wanted to make clear that he’s not fully advocating the “mirror” theory of representation.
Addendum x2: Here is Edmund Burke’s speech to the electors at Bristol where he outlines his views on representation. I agree with him.
Comments
1 Comment so far
“Cao said he’d vote for the health care reform bill if a pro-life amendment passed …”
Maybe Congressman Cao supports health care reform – even imperfect reform – regardless of the views of his constituency. He wouldn’t be the first devout Catholic who views a government health care program to be an essential part of Catholic Social Doctrine.
Now, I happen to disagree with that assessment, but I also have no doubts that it is a sincerely held belief by Congressman Cao.