The Severed Cortex

Link: http://www.amazon.com/Fight-Club-Politics-Partisanship-Representatives/dp/0742551180/sr=8-1/qid=1157894898/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-5868651-6631858?ie=UTF8&s=books

By Julet Eilperin who covered Congress for the Washington Post

I assumed that the partisanship in Congress was a reflection of the overall electorate. I assumed the voting public actually had a say in who they elected. I couldn't be more wrong. After reading this book I realize that me going to the polls to vote is the equivalent of sitting down at a poker table with players who have marked the deck.

As a country, we are more partisan than we used to be. However, the question of why we are that way is a bit more like the 'chicken and egg' enigma. Are we more partisan because we've grown more partisan or are we more partisan because it's easier to identify and label sections of the country as having a particular 'lean'. There are some indications that we as citizens tend to live in areas with like-minded people. That's probably true. You don't find a lot of middle class white folks living in North St. Louis City. You also don't find a lot of South City Bosnians living in the Metro East. Enter the world of the gerrymander, where political consultants can carve up districts so that all those like-minded people reside in the same district; even if those district maps are ridiculously drawn. This is part and parcel of why incumbents in the house win a whopping 98% of the time.

So, you say to yourself, what's the big deal with gerrymandering? It's been done for years. Here's the problem. The US House of Representatives is supposed to be a body politic most closely aligned with it's constituents. Even under gerrymandering that is still true. However, when you carve out districts that have a particular slant, the representatives for those districts tend to represent that slant. That leaves ultra-Republican districts and ultra-Democratic districts that offer the representatives no incentive to find solutions that appease the middle (which is where I suspect most of us really lie). This fosters an us vs. them mentality and when this happens politicians are unlikely to stick their neck out on any given issue. If the districts were a mix of left and right, politicians would have no choice but to find the answer that lies in the middle ground.

That gives you the groundwork for where we are; Congressional gridlock. But that's really the tip of the iceberg. Ever heard of a PAC (political action committee)? Basically it's a political patronage institution that allows politicians who are good at raising funds to dole that money out to those politicians who are not so good at raising funds. If Joe Smith from Montana has a tough time raising money for his campaign, Nancy Pelosi or Dennis Hastert (who by the way are excellent at raising funds) can give money from their PAC to Joe Smith. Of course Mr. Smith is under no obligation to vote along party lines in exchange for receiving said fundage ... NOT!! As if gerrymandering didn't force politicians down a certain known voting outcome, PAC's further drive home that point. Vote against the party line and you'll see no more PAC money. Joe Smith can't afford to do that. Hillary Clinton isn't wrong when she says Congress is run like a plantation; actually it's more like a Middle Ages feudal system.

So now that Representatives have no incentive to buck the party line, all the majority needs is to make sure it's party members do not stray from that. Since they seldom do, there's no reason for the majority to reach out to the minority party; furthering the us vs. them mentality. Because there's no reason to reach out to the other party, to ensure that the majority party's legislation gets passed they typically change the procedural rules. (Remember, the majority party is still in charge of the rules committee). This obviously marks the proverbial deck even more.

Procedurally all these things combine to make a divided House of Representatives which theoretically represents a divided country. These political jack-asses take this a step further by refusing to socialize with each other, which of course fosters the divide even further. In the 'good old days' politicians moved their families to Washington and on many occasions attended social events together. This allowed them to learn about other representatives on a personal level. When this occurred in the past, representatives were less likely to bring up the politics of personal destruction because they knew the person on a personal level. If I'm a representative and you are a representative and our sons play on the same soccer team, I'm probably less likely to call you a brie eating surrender monkey. In return you are less likely to call me a homophobic racist control freak. Assuming of course that neither one of us are these, we are less likely to call each other that because we may be eating dinner together with our wives tomorrow. Politicians don't move their families to Washington anymore, nor do they socialize outside their circle.

So, who is to blame. Firstly the Democrats of the 1980's are to blame. They started the whole thing by playing the slash and burn cards against the Republican minority. Secondly, Newt Gingrich is to blame. I have to give Newt credit for being the smartest weasel. He successfully figured out a way to get the Republicans in power in the House, and he figured out ways to keep them there. Tom DeLay is not smart enough to figure out these things himself, but he was smart enough to figure out that a guy who can raise money can go a long way in this type of setup. He's part of the problem (as is Pelosi, Hastert, Blunt and a whole host of others whose ability to raise money is paramount to actually being able to legislate).

I really want to keep this blog somewhat clean so my mother would be proud to read it, but it's things like this that make me unable to do so. Until we get rid of the money in politics, and that starts with PAC money, and we get rid of the gerrymandering process that divides districts into blue and red, the common voters like you and me are completely fucked.
I'd like to say that it's 'Taxation Without Representation' and we need to throw our own Boston Tea Party, but it's really 'Taxation with Too Much Representation'. I don't know what kind of party we should throw for that but it should definitely involve a lot of booze.