On the Question of Representation
There have been a number of state GOP bodies of varying weight and importance that have voted measures of “censure” against Congressional Republicans with the temerity to not only identify impeachable behavior by the nation’s previous Chief Executive, but to then vote to convict him of it. Conservatives of judgment and discernment should consider these lawmakers borderline heroic (although doing what is right is a low bar), but that is not what makes up local GOP committees. Let us hear from one such official from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania:
Apparently, Mr. Ball of the Washington County GOP believes that Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA), who voted to convict the nation’s most corrupt President ever at his second impeachment trial, was sent to Washington to represent whatever it is that 50% plus 1 of his constituents are able to agree about at any one time. Putting aside the obvious problems of agency in situations where such a majority view does not exist, Mr. Ball’s view is simply not conservative. We know this because the matter has been raised and dealt with already by an actual conservative, someone who warned a good deal about the dangers/excesses of nascent populism. His name was Edmund Burke, and anyone in American considering themselves a conservative should be familiar with his writing. In 1774, Burke dispatched with the Mr. Ball of his age in the famous “Speech to the Electors of Bristol, much of which is provided below for a new generation to comprehend. Emphases are added:
I am sorry I cannot conclude without saying a word on a topic touched upon by my worthy colleague. I wish that topic had been passed by at a time when I have so little leisure to discuss it. But since he has thought proper to throw it out, I owe you a clear explanation of my poor sentiments on that subject.
He tells you that "the topic of instructions has occasioned much altercation and uneasiness in this city;" and he expresses himself (if I understand him rightly) in favour of the coercive authority of such instructions.
Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
My worthy colleague says, his will ought to be subservient to yours. If that be all, the thing is innocent. If government were a matter of will upon any side, yours, without question, ought to be superior. But government and legislation are matters of reason and judgment, and not of inclination; and what sort of reason is that, in which the determination precedes the discussion; in which one set of men deliberate, and another decide; and where those who form the conclusion are perhaps three hundred miles distant from those who hear the arguments?
To deliver an opinion, is the right of all men; that of constituents is a weighty and respectable opinion, which a representative ought always to rejoice to hear; and which he ought always most seriously to consider. But authoritative instructions; mandates issued, which the member is bound blindly and implicitly to obey, to vote, and to argue for, though contrary to the clearest conviction of his judgment and conscience,--these are things utterly unknown to the laws of this land, and which arise from a fundamental mistake of the whole order and tenor of our constitution.
Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices, ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament. If the local constituent should have an interest, or should form an hasty opinion, evidently opposite to the real good of the rest of the community, the member for that place ought to be as far, as any other, from any endeavour to give it effect. I beg pardon for saying so much on this subject. I have been unwillingly drawn into it; but I shall ever use a respectful frankness of communication with you. Your faithful friend, your devoted servant, I shall be to the end of my life: a flatterer you do not wish for.
On the Return of Earmarks
Earmarks, or “pork-barrel spending” as it is referred to by some, appear to be on their way back. A good overview of the subject can be found at a recent piece at The Dispatch. This blog has also commented on earmarks, with a consistent voice of qualified approval since 2009:
Well, I rise in favor of the besieged earmark, and I do so proudly for two reasons.
The first is that it is an excellent way to distribute taxpayer money back into the economy. Yes, I know, the Museum of the Onion and funding for the study of cow flatulence make for great headlines, but you know what? At the end of those earmarks are real American citizens with jobs, jobs funded ultimately from that earmark (and very often matching state or local funds). At the heart of the earmark system is the knowledge that others are doing it and you might as well get yours (for your district) while the getting is good. If you don't participate, you don't get projects in your district...good or bad. Which brings me to my second point....
Pork-busters don't seem to have come up with a better way to distribute federal money back to localities. Were each individual project to be put up for up or down votes, the mechanisms of federal legislating would grind to a halt; there would be no time to work on other important NATIONAL legislation.
Critics tend to suggest that if what is at the heart of an earmark were actually important, it would be included in the base budget submitted by the executive branch. This view overstates how effective our bureaucracies are, and how completely they understand matters, and how responsive they are to changes in the marketplace, and understates how sclerotic, and hide-bound, and difficult to deal with they are for small-business owners far from Washington.
Most importantly though, earmarks serve as an effective “carrot and stick” for committee leaders through which to keep wing-nut outliers in line. The evolution of Congress as a WeWork facility for budding media stars got a real boost in the 1970’s as reform efforts hobbled the power of committee chairs and individual members became less dependent on party leadership for their jobs. Getting rid of earmarks accelerated this trend, to the point where the nation is represented by a stable of show-ponies more interested in cable news split screens than in the serious business of legislating (witness one of the latest to join the stable, North Carolina’s Madison Cawthorn, who has built his staff around communications rather than policy). Congressional leadership needs tools to discipline (and encourage) members, and the control over targeted Congressional adds served as just such a method.