Congressional Leadership And Reform

Conclusion

American Politics:
©Marc A. Triebwasser

One of the major political issues determining our national future is the question of how well our government is able to represent effectively the needs and desires of the American people. As we have noted, the role of Congress as a representative of the people was one of the most important functions of this "first branch" of government envisioned by the Founders when they drafted the Constitution. However, the many new needs which our national government has had to meet in this century has placed this role of representation under great stress.

Early in our discussion we observed that the nature of representation in Congress has changed substantially over the years from a quantitative perspective, the large growth in our nation's population having necessitated an increase in the size of our congressional districts. The more important aspects in the evolution of this representative function in Congress are, however, of a qualitative nature. Changes in the social and economic conditions in this country over the last 200 years have led to differences in many important aspects of representation today, as compared to those which existed at the beginning of this nation's development. These changes have brought into play the important issue of geographic representation as compared to functional or ideological representation.

When the Constitution was originally adopted, business and social activities in this country were localized. It was therefore reasonable to assume that each local congressional district would have a flavor of its own, and that the interests of the people living in each particular district would be generally similar. Thus, the early divisions of political parties in this country not only reflected functional distinctions as between manufacturing and agricultural interests, they also reflected regional differences between the North and the South as well as between the seaboard and mountain regions of the original states. What this meant was that by providing geographic representation in Congress, the economic and social conditions existing during the early period of this nation's development allowed such geographic representation to reflect a functional or ideological representation as well. During the twentieth century, however, local differences in this country have begun to diminish. As we approach the twenty-first century, we find that many local businesses have now become subsidiaries or franchises of very large national (and sometimes international) corporations or conglomerates. Thus, the business interests of various congressional districts throughout this country are not as distinct now as they once were.

One example of this may be seen in the lobbying activities of North American Rockwell in favor of the B-1 bomber. North American Rockwell had subcontracts for this bomber in 48 of our 50 states. This meant that these subcontractors throughout our nation could be relied upon to pressure for the passage of legislation supporting the B-1 bomber. It also meant that the workers in the plants owned by these subcontractors might also potentially be relied upon to contact their Congresspersons to vote in favor of this bomber. Although the B-1 bomber project eventually lost in Congress, the fact still remains that North American Rockwell was able to assemble an extensive nationwide network of political support.

In addition to specific companies operating in many sections of the country, one also encounters the fact that the business practices of large corporations have tended to become increasingly standardized. This is especially true with the growth in the numbers of people employed by these major corporations who have received training in one of our nation's many Masters of Business Administration programs. What this means is that the ways of thinking about business administration by people conducting different business in different parts of this country are becoming increasingly similar.

Another extension of this more standardized way of thinking about business and related activities involves the increased influence over much of our nation's farming by agribusiness interests. What this means is that instead of most of our nation's agricultural products being produced by a large number of independent farmers and distributors, today more and more aspects of our nation's agricultural production are controlled by large corporations. And even many of our independent farms are under contract to produce solely for specific business concerns.

At one time, it could have been reasonably assumed that a Congressperson from a rural district would represent interests far different from one representing an industrial area. However, as agricultural, industrial, and commercial business practices have come to be more coordinated and to be thought about in similar ways, differences in the approaches to public policy of business leaders in farming and industrial districts have tended to diminish substantially.

One example of connections between representatives coming from rural and urban congressional districts may be seen in the defeat of the Family Farm Act in 1972. This Act would have amended previous antitrust legislation to prevent any corporation with more than three million dollars in assets from engaging in food, livestock, fiber, or related business activities. It was sponsored by Representative James Aboureck (D, SD) and would have greatly benefitted small farmers and producers. The committee to which it was originally assigned was the House Judiciary Committee, headed at that time by Emanuel Celler (D, NY). Discussion of this bill in subcommittee originally called for three days of hearing in Washington and a number of days of field hearings to allow for the testimony of small farmers and operators who were unable to travel to the nation's capitol. However, in a surprise move Congressman Celler called off the hearings after only two days--thus effectively killing the bill.

At first glance, one might doubt that Representative Celler coming from New York City--one of the least likely areas of the country to have rural interests--would have any personal concern about this piece of legislation designed to serve a rural constituency. However, this was not the case. It turns out that Congressman Celler was serving at the time as a Director of the Oppenheimer Fund, a New York based mutual fund. This Fund owned nearly 400 million dollars in corporate securities, more than 90 million of which was invested in agribusiness. Among the Fund's holdings were a considerable number of shares in Kroger, then America's fifth largest retail operation; in international Harvester, America's biggest manufacturer of farm tractors and machinery; in several large tobacco companies; and in a number of oil companies which produce thousands of tons of agricultural chemicals such as pesticides and fertilizers. To get an idea of how heavily involved Kroger itself was in America's food business, we might note from an article by James Rowan that at the time Kroger owned:

1,500 [super] markets, 430 drugstores, forty family centers (food, drugs and general merchandise), 150 delicatessens, fifteen meat-packing plants, a dairy farm, five milk and ice cream plants, four bakeries, a sausage plant, a trucking fleet, several regional warehouses, and an Arkansas chicken-breeding farm and feed mill operation capable of producing 28 million broilers a year. [James Rowan, "Greyhound Steak, Sauce Oppenheimer", The Nation, June 5, 1972.]

The fact that Representative Celler was connected with the Oppenheimer fund does not suggest that he necessarily had any significant personal financial interest in the legislation his Committee was handling. After all, he only received $1,000 a year as one of the Oppenheimer Fund's director. The point to be made here is that through his Oppenheimer Fund and other connections, Congressman Celler met those people who were likely to influence him more in the direction of agribusiness interests than in those of the small farmer or producer.

When these similarities in the ways of thinking between seemingly different congressional districts are coupled with the manner in which Congresspersons are chosen within each district, a significant question about the nature of representation in Congress today begins to emerge. Congresspersons in each district are elected on a "winner-take-all" basis. In other words, whichever candidate receives a plurality of votes wins the congressional seat. Let's say for example that Party A's candidate receives 30 percent of the votes, Party B's candidate receives 40 percent of the votes and Party C's candidate receives 30 percent of the votes. In this case Party B's candidate will win, even though 60 percent of the people may have voted against him or her. Under such an election system, it is very difficult for minority or third parties to win representation in either chamber of Congress.

Consider for example a case in which a third party receives an average of twenty-five percent of the votes in half the congressional districts throughout the nation. This means that such a party would have received twelve-and-a-half percent of the total popular vote on a national level. However, because no single candidate of this party received a plurality of the votes in any particular congressional district, this party would have achieved no representation whatsoever in Congress.

Furthermore, in order for a person to get elected to Congress today, he or she must spend vast sums of money on election campaigns. It takes several hundred thousand dollars to run an average congressional campaign today, and one million dollars on the average to run a campaign for the Senate. In addition since the term of office in the House of Representatives is only two years long, Representatives must often start to consider the next election campaign the moment they begin their current term. In order to obtain the sums of money necessary to run a modern election campaign--with television advertising, public relations consultants, pollsters and so forth--a Congressperson must have the support of people or organizations who have access to reasonably large amounts of money.

What this all means is that congresspersons must generally seek the support of wealthier individuals and business organizations. To this extent then, congresspersons often feel the need to take the opinions of these wealthier people or organizations into account in considering how they will vote on specific issues. This does not mean that congresspersons will always go along with the wishes of these wealthier elements. It does mean, however, that they will tend to give the opinions of these people and organizations a good deal of consideration. It also means that oftentimes they will be far more aware of the opinions of these heavy supporters than they will be of the feelings of the majority of less well placed individuals within their districts.

At one time the wealthier elements in different congressional districts represented different ways of thinking--such as the differences between the agricultural elites in the South and the manufacturing elites in the North which existed in the pre-Civil War days of this country. Because of this, the greater access that these wealthier elements had to Congresspersons still allowed for significant regional differences in philosophy to emerge in congressional discussions. However, as the wealthier elements in various congressional districts have tended to think in similar ways about the conduct of business and politics, previous differences in economic philosophy have tended to decrease in the decision-making process within the federal government. This does not mean that many significant philosophical and regional differences do not still exist. What it does mean is that the nature and intensity of these differences has decreased markedly over the years in practice--even if not necessarily in rhetoric.

Thus as the political and economic leadership in the various parts of our nation have tended to become increasingly similar, the type of geographic representation built into our nation's Constitution no longer allows for the representation of philosophical or functional differences as it once did. There are, for example, many people today who have a growing feeling that real differences between the Republican and Democratic parties on economic issues seem to have all but disappeared. On the national, state, and local levels one often sees nominally Democratic administrators and legislators supporting, in practice, economic policies which would have been dubbed Republican in nature decades ago. Moreover, in many elections the public often seems to be face with a Tweedledee/Tweedledum choice. Many people today feel that they are often asked in elections not to choose the candidate they would most favor, but rather to vote for the one whom they view as the least repugnant: a "lesser of the two evils" choice.

Much of this situation results from developments within political parties in this country which we will be discussing later. For the time being, let us just note that, under changed economic and social conditions, the very structure of geographic representation built into our Constitution itself allows for only limited representation of philosophical and political differences on many of the more important issues facing our nation today. All of this, of course, brings seriously into question the ability of Congress today to carry out the representative function it was originally designed to serve.
 

As we have seen, the vast changes which have occurred in this country over its more than 200-year history have severely strained the effectiveness of a number of the political principles and structures originally built into our national government through the Constitution. In the previous section, we have noted some of the ways these changes have affected the ability of Congress to represent the desires of the American people in many important areas of public policy. Moreover, what has become clear from our discussions about Congress is that any changes in the way things are currently being done in Congress require not simply changes in the individuals who serve in that body, but also changes in the structures and procedures which determine the way our national legislature operates. As H. Mark Roelofs of New York University noted: "Public policy is determined less by who plays the game than by the rules by which the game is played."

In our attempt as individuals to affect the processes by which we are governed, we must bear in mind that the major struggle we are facing today is one between individuals and institutions. Even if we elect a representative or senator whose views seem to be in line with our own, this is not enough to ensure the adoption of those policies we might favor. Upon arrival in Washington, our representatives and senators face a vast array of institutional pressures. In Congress they must be concerned about their relationship to the committees and subcommittees on which they serve, to the overall leadership of the House or the Senate, to their individual party's caucus and their caucus' leadership structure, and to the various professional staff people in congressional committees and offices. Within the national government as a whole our individual representatives and senators have to be concerned with their relations with the President and his or her staff, as well as with a significant number of well placed civil servants within the Federal Bureaucracy. Outside of government, our congresspersons need to be concerned with their relation to many of the more well organized special interest groups representing corporations and large private organizations which exist on the national, as well as on the local, level.

All of these institutionalized pressures must be considered by our representatives and senators at the same time that they try to represent their individual constituents or attempt to pursue the general political principles they may have sincerely supported during their election campaigns. The political process within Congress is far more complex than many readers may have first imagined, and the entanglement of institutionalized pressures exerted within this body often makes change quite difficult. Those desiring social change, therefore, need to be fully aware of those complexities and pressures which exist in the operation of our national legislature, representing as it does over 275 million Americans in a technologically complex and globally involved society now entering the twenty-first century.

For those who do desire social changes, it is not enough simply to elect senators or representatives who support your particular positions. It is not enough to write letters to your representatives or senators. You must organize into groups and either gain the expertise yourself as to how our national government actually works or hire experts--that is, lobbyists--who will be able to work for your interests in Washington. As we will discuss more fully later, in an age of institutions and institutionalized arrangements only those individuals who join together and mount a coordinated and organized effort will be able to exert any significant influence on our government or on our society.
 
 

Congressional Leadership And Reform

The Question of Representation