Last week, while watching the House contort itself in a self-serving round of navel-gazing over the bailout package, I pondered two connotations of their disconnect with the populace. Taken together they are a question really, that looks at the motivation behind politicians’ decisions; the metaphysical understanding of a Representative if you will. This question in particular asks why our elected officials vote for legislation they know their constituents are against. At the time, many of our representatives had chosen not to support the bailout package; not because they were against it – quite the contrary, they wanted to vote for it – no, their problem was their constituents didn’t want it and the election was to close for a nice spin cycle. So I wondered if they ignored the people who elected them because:
- …constituents are too stupid to understand
or
- …constituents are not the ones who pay their bills
Over the weekend I am sad to report the answer became clear. The majority of America (at least the majority of America who contact their representatives) were against the bailout the first time around. I had hoped it was due to the fact that middle America was smarter than the politicians and pundits surmised. But then Wall Street had its little temper tantrum and middle America couldn’t wait for the bailout package to pass. They told their representatives so with an onslaught of voice mails, emails and snail mails.
Walls Street’s melt down affected every-one’s retirement funds and investment funds and saving funds… if they elected to sell them that day. Otherwise it made not a wit of difference to the average person on the street who does not expect to need those funds for years yet. But people panicked anyway.
I learned from this episode a lesson most politicians must learn early in their career. I learned that middle America did not read up on or have at least a passing understanding of what the bailout meant, nor did they look into and try to understand how Wall Street’s shoe stomping episode actually affected them. Instead, middle America did what they always do: they swam over to the shallow end of the pool, dipped their face in the water for a second or two and then asked someone else what to think and how much to panic. The bailout package passed. The market is down 500 points. Happy Monday everyone. There must be a lot of head scratching going on now.
By the way: Why do our elected officials vote what they think is best despite what their constituents may think or tell them? Because we are simply too stupid to understand.
Eric Bramlett says:
We live in a representative democracy. That’s exactly how it is supposed to function.
Ultimately, it is the voters’ faults for electing officials whose idea of the best decision isn’t always the best decision.
October 6, 2008 — 9:52 am
Jeff Brown says:
The other day I reviewed the party platform of one of the candidates from a presidential election held before I was born. It was for the guy running on the Socialist Party ticket.
It had, I think, 38 points. Since then, over 25 of those points have become reality. We’re seeing the oh so predictable results of that in real time.
Voters: Here’s the silver lining for you. On November 4th we can begin to reverse this socialist trend. If we don’t?
It won’t matter how many fish you catch, ‘cuz we’ll all end up with the same insufficient amount.
October 6, 2008 — 11:12 am
Sean Purcell says:
Eric,
Yes, I understand the concept of representative democracy. A concept created before direct democracy was a possibility. Given that it is now feasible and combined with the fact that polls drive the votes a great deal of the time anyway, I still find this a valid question.
More to the point though: in a dynamic situation, especially one as unprecedented as a $700 billion bailout and nationalization of large chunks of the financial industry, one might think the representatives would want the input of their constituents.
I suppose my original post was lamenting the complete loss of accountability to the electorate and the obscene, insulting way in which much of congress openly admits to ignoring the public. This post, on the other hand, realizes why they don’t listen and begrudgingly admits the wisdom of their contempt.
Ultimately, it is the voters’ faults for electing officials whose idea of the best decision isn’t always the best decision
I agree. But I am left with a dilemma. Who do I trust to do the voting? Based on this past week I do not see an informed or discerning public.
October 6, 2008 — 11:46 am
Sean Purcell says:
Jeff,
I would love to read that platform (certainly more than I am enjoying living it). Anyway to get it posted?
October 6, 2008 — 11:47 am
Jeff Brown says:
I forgot where I found it, but surely it’ll be easier to find than the Holy Grail, right? I’ll start searching.
October 6, 2008 — 11:54 am
Eric Bramlett says:
Honestly, I’m happy that they don’t go to the polls for issues as complicated as this financial crisis. I don’t want the fat part of the bell curve calling the shots…I want the pointy end on the right hand side doing so.
Do I agree with the bill that was passed? No, absolutely not. I think it was poorly structured to begin with, improved slightly in the house, and then bogged down beyond belief with pork in the senate. IMO, the illustrated tragedy here is the influence that lobbyists have on Washington. How else does the Puerto Rican rum industry get a $150mm+ incentive tacked onto the bailout?
October 6, 2008 — 11:54 am
Sean Purcell says:
Eric,
You’re preaching to the choir brother. I’m glad they don’t go to the polls now too. Unfortunately, we are left with the latter connotation of my original post: they vote with their pocketbook. Put enough crap in the sandwich and you get the signatures you need. Problem is: we all have to eat the thing.
October 6, 2008 — 12:06 pm
David Shafer says:
As to the stock market, and folks retirement accounts; yes there is real panic there, rightfully so, but for the wrong reasons of course. Maybe some realization that their mutual funds are now down for the last decade has something to do with the panic! I await the outcry against Wall Street for selling these flawed and highly profitable financial instruments to the public as “not risky” with baited breath!
As to the bailout, I appreciate your opinion about the need to not “bail out” Wall Street and the banks, but the issues were very deep and when Warren Buffett came out strongly on the side of the bailout it shook me up enough to consider that there was a very real issue here that needed fixing in a way only the government can fix! Somehow I don’t believe Mr. Buffet is the bastion of socialism! But of course there is always room for disagreement, but I generally try to stay on the same side as Mr. Buffett in the investment world!
As to representative government, I agree with Eric about wanting folks in charge to come from the right hand pointy side of the bell curve! Although I really don’t think that ultimately the Pres or Vice Pres has that much control over the vicissitudes of the economy! Call me an elitist over this attitude if you want but you gotta wonder about turning over the country to a team that includes the bottom 1% at the Naval Academy and what was it 5 schools in 6 years for a Bachelor’s degree!
Peace, out!
October 6, 2008 — 12:52 pm
Tina Fountain says:
Sean – I agree that most elected officials think that their constituents are too stupid to figure out what’s going on. Now that the market plunged today, watch the finger pointing that will follow. They also think that we have no memory as well.
October 6, 2008 — 3:18 pm
Bob says:
Yeah, it’s a representative democracy, but that requires effort on our part. We have the lowest voter turnout on average of any free society on the planet.
Sen. Feinstein said she voted for a bill that she didn’t like because Arnold and the folks in control in Kalifornia said that if it wasn’t passed, they would have no where to go to get the “Golden Gate” bridge financing that they do every year.
I saw one ole coot stand up and say, “Vote me out if you don’t like it, but I did what I thought was best”.
Another said that he and his colleagues learned more about finance in a weekend than they ever had prior. I emailed him a list of blogs I read to help him get up to speed.
A few Blue Dogs stood up and cried “BS!”. Good for them!!! May they be re-elected!
Today I watched my daughter’s volleyball game and the question i heard a dozen times was, “Where did the DOW close?”. No one was surprised. Most just shrugged. They didnt EXPECT any positive change, as much as they HOPED for one.
The silver lining here is that you could see the greatest turnover ever in the House if those that emailed and called, voted “NO” to the incumbent who voted “YES”. I dont care if the only option was a Nazi,if the citizenry cast aside partisanship in order to hold them accountable, these clowns would actually vote for or against bills based on fear of getting re-elected.
OK, enough of this fairy tale. I need to read a more plausible one to my 5 year old – its bedtime.
October 6, 2008 — 8:08 pm
Sean Carr says:
700B Down. Roughly 20 Trillion in credit default swaps and derivatives to go.
October 6, 2008 — 9:51 pm
JDallas says:
We all know that this is going to be a pretty bad storm for all sectors of the economy. However, I don’t think that voters being stupid or politicians being less than ethical is what we’re seeing (at least in full). I think what is happening is so complex that the average man can’t understand what is going on and how we got here. I for instance can’t understand how these banks failing, means the economy will seize up. It’s always “we’re using the 700 billion to stop a recession” and I ask how ?
October 7, 2008 — 8:37 am
JDallas says:
Can the government make a profit off of this toxic debt. When you read of something being nationalized, its because it’s either profitable now, or could be profitable later. Examples would be oil refineries and telecom companies. However, when we buy debt, the non-performing kind, do we stand any chance to see that money come back ?
October 7, 2008 — 8:41 am