John Kerry is raising money to target four GOP Senators. The added pressure may get them out of office in 2008, but the short term goal is that the threat of not being re-elected will convince them to break with Bush, and support the Democratic position on Iraq and war funding.
As the email says, “This is an extraordinary campaign; to my knowledge, nothing quite like this has ever been done.”
To me, the interesting thing about it is that it continue a trend of nationalizing Congressional races. There is a growing perception that the job of your representatives is not so much to look after your local interests, as to represent your views on national issues. More and more, citizens and politicians are stepping in to other states, to influence the outcomes of their elections. This is because my senator can’t represent my interests if some other senator blocks them. For example, Ted Kennedy frustrates the right to no end, and Jesse Helms drove me crazy for decades. They weild(ed) disproptionate power, and their opponents logically enough wanted to get rid of them.
Now maybe it’s just because I’ve become more active since Bush came around, but it seems like more and more, both sides are doing something about it. Not just talking on the radio, not just setting them up as scapegoats for their own failures to enact legislation, but taking action. For example:
* Talking Point Memo integrates local coverage and polls congressman individually, exposing them to national scrutiny. They’ve taken the lead on exposing Social Security bamboozlement and secret holds on bills.
* Increased focus funding for DSSC and RNC, both of which take national money and apply it to local races.
* Getting rid of Tom Daschle, a giant pile on by enormous amounts of national Republican resources.
* I was part of a moveon.org event, where fellow Georgia residents called a particular Pennsylvania district to try and get Lois Murphy elected. (We failed.)
* An Alaskan representative inserting earmarks targeted for Florida. Why? Because he got generous donations to do so. (This shows the market at work – if your own rep won’t sling some pork for you, go to another rep who will!)
If you accept this is happening, is it good? Is there something vaguely unconstitutional about interfering in another state’s elections? Or is it fine because we’re all fellow citizens of the USA? I’m honestly conflicted. What do you think?
Gorby raises a good point. One of the things we sometimes don’t think about is that conservative policies may be better at one level of government, while more liberal policies might be better at another.
But here’s taking the topic a bit further.
Does the question of what a representative’s job is also apply to voters?
Obviously, I am free to vote for whomever I like, but do I have an obligation to try and think of the big picture, the same as a representative may have to keep in mind the welfare of an entire country or state?
A strong arguement can be made for voting rather mechanically (I vote for what is best for me, the representative votes based on the specific will of his constituency) and that everything will come out in the wash.
Personally, I don’t buy that. Certainly, this doesn’t violate the principles of democracy, but I do think it violates principles of civic duty.
This can be something simple (i.e. changing zoning restrictions so that my property value goes up but puts a store owner out of business) to more complicated ones like, say, farm subsidies where gazillions of people are paying money to an unsucessful business model. Btw, I know it isn’t that simple…and that any real solution to the idiocy that is farm subsidies has to be vast and inclusive, but, lets face it, the moment Oracle goes out of business, no one is going to pay ME to not code in PL/SQL. Of course, the very idea of farm subsidies is allowed to continue on because of the myth of the pure-of-heart-worker-of-the-earth-midwest-lie.
sorry…end tanget.
It’s amazing how nationalized all the races are now. This is a pretty recent phenomenon, isn’t it? A few years ago, I don’t really recall voting for a specific Congressman or Senator simply to keep a majority in Congress. But recently, since everything’s gotten so politicized — particularly since 2000 — it seems a necessity to try and neutralize Bush by electing whatever Democrat I can into Congress, no matter how crooked or incompetent.
It actually makes local politics a lot more refreshing — I can vote for the more qualified candidate, no matter the political affiliation. What do I care if my mayor is a Democrat or Republican, as long as he can keep my town clean, manage a reasonable budget, spend money wisely, etc.
Which leads me to a follow-up question for Muttrox, related to local voting. My wife and I are generally on the same page for voting, but we sometimes differ particularly on local elections. She might want the Republican for state senator and I might want the Democrat. So we’ll just neutralize each other’s vote. Instead, we bargain votes. “I’ll vote your way on state senator if you vote my way on county sheriff and the freeholders…” That way we maximize our household vote. Anything fundamentally wrong with this, as long as we’re both happy with the deal?
“Can we find a better candidate to challenge Kerry in a primary? I’m still pissed about 2004 and wish we could find a way to make him exit stage left.”
Oh, c’mon. Just… come on.
I’m glad to see that y’all are wishy-washy about it like me. I think Moleboy hit it right on, there’s a tension between a Senator as a representative of his state and as one of one hundred national representatives. There doesn’t seem to be any clear cut balance point between those two roles, it’s a huge gray area.
There are sort of two issues here.
Do we approve of the tactic in general?
Do we approve of how it is being implemented.
In general, I approve of this. While your congressmen have to keep the interests of their state in mind, they HAVE to think about the big picture.
For example, New York State wants a military base built in it. It will bring in lots of jobs and money.
However, another option is to build it around New Orleans, an area that deserpately needs help coming back to life.
It is in NY’s best interest, from an immediate perspective, to get the base. But the base will mean much more to N.O.
Should the congressman
a. vote for what holds the most obvious benefit for the NY constituency?
b. act with enlightened self-interest, realizing that rejuvinating N.O. helps the country as a whole?
You can easily argue both ends. I think the moral thing to do is ‘b’, but is the congressmen in place to act morally? Or is he there to do the bidding of his state? Further, is he there to do what is BEST for his state (the will of the constituency not always being whats best for the state).
This is, in a sense, a fundamental question in the nature of representative democracy.
Do we elect people to be our voice? Or are we electing them because we feel they can make our lives better?
I think it has to be a mix of both. I think that they should get us to our larger goals, while, basically, ignoring the smaller.
Large: We need new jobs
Small: Cut taxes so new jobs will be created
The representative should be trying as hard as possible for the ‘Large’, but, lets face it, the average person knows jack and shit about economics (there’s some question about whether or not ANYONE knows ANYTHING about economics…). The Rep, with any luck, knows significantly more.
Hence, we set the goals, he plans the strategy.
wow, that was pretty scattered.
BTW, going after McConnell is moronic and is a waste of time; it won’t even register on the radar here in Kentucky. He should be picking fights he can win. a I’d like to sell him. Can we find a better candidate to challenge Kerry in a primary? I’m still pissed about 2004 and wish we could find a way to make him exit stage left.
I’m conflicted about this issue too, but I think I ultimately come down in favor of this sort of thing. I don’t feel particularly well represented by Mitch McConnell, but I recognize that there’s no chance he’ll be ousted when next he’s up for re-election. My best alternative, therefore, is to attempt to neutralize his influence by picking off his more vulnerable foot soldiers. As for constitutionality, I don’t think there’s a question there. I had a friend run a campaign for a candidate in Nebraska, and he felt more than comfortable coming to me and asking for a contribution even though I’m 800 miles from that state. Monetary contributions have long since been nationalized. I just wish Kerry had done this when Jim Bunning was up for re-election. Bunning was a very weak incumbent and the DNC didn’t recognize it early enough; more attention on the national level could easily have helped oust that clown.