In the American government system, we elect representatives at all levels of government. At the federal level, we elect two forms of representatives, and separate those two forms into two separate parts of Congress. In one of those parts of Congress, called "the House", representatives are given the name "Representatives" and they are elected to speak as representatives for the people of their district. In the other part of Congress, called "the Senate", representatives are given the name "Senators" and are elected to speak as representatives for their State legislature. Under this system, it is natural to ask what it means to represent.
If you look up the word ‘represent’ in the dictionary, or if you try an internet search using any internet search engine, you will find a definition like the following:
This article is about that first definition. Notice the words ‘be entitled or appointed to act or speak for (someone), especially in an official capacity.’ When we find ourselves in situations where we can not speak for ourselves, these words are the words we will think of when we ask someone to represent for us. Many of us already know about lawyers, and many of us may have had a lawyer represent for us in a Court of Law.
But let us consider these words with respect to our Congress in the remainder of this article.
Much of the current concern we have with our representatives occurs because our representatives give all appearances of not being able to get past those first two words ‘be entitled’. This concern is with both houses of congress. When we hear that our representatives exempt themselves from the same laws they create to govern us, we are left with the feeling that they have entitled themselves. When they exempt themselves, our representatives relay the sense that while the law is good for us, it is not good for them. If it is a good law, then why do they feel obliged to exempt themselves from it? This leaves us thinking they have only their own best interests in mind. We are left feeling that they have totally ignored the latter part of the defined role that is provided in that definition.
States & Health Care Representation
Who did your Senator represent on HealthCare?See results without voting
Health Care Facts
Passed by the 111th Congress, in their 2nd Session
- 56 Yea Votes, 2 Independent and 54 Democrat
- 43 Nay Votes, 40 Republican and 3 Democrat
- 1 Abstain, Republican
- 22 Senators broke with the position of their States
Subsequently 27 States (a majority of States) Sued in United States Supreme Court
June 28, 2012 - the Supreme Court upheld the Individual Mandate of the law, essential to funding the law.
- The Repeal Amendment OR Repeal The Amendment?
This article compares our Senators voting on Health Care, by state, to the list of States that filed lawsuits against Health Care. It then uses the data as an example of how our Senators no longer owe allegiance to their States.
To Speak For
These words define the relationship between the representative and the represented. They also identify a role where the representative will relay the desires and feelings of their constituents to others in Congress. Think about this r then consider the actions of your representative in Congress. Does your representative take the time to explain the items that are being considered before Congress? Do they take the time to listen to you and your neighbor’s opinions on the topic? Or do they assume that since it is congressional business that you will not understand?
We are all adults here. If any two of us were to compare how we feel about various topics, we fully expect that we will not agree on everything. But we all know that with some mature discussion and civil exchanges of our respective points of view that we will be able to come to some sort of working compromise. Life will go on. We expect that same notion of discussion and exchange of ideas to extend to our representatives in Congress. We call it ‘civil discourse’. Does it happen? On good days, yes it does. But more normally, that exchange of ideas is presented to us a game, with rooters for each party jumping at the opportunity to cheer for their team. Too often, good common sense is put aside in favor of the act of arguing, rooting and cheering.
At the Senate level, we are taught that Senators will speak for their States legislatures. The notion of representing for a State is a little bit more difficult notion to grasp, since States usually do not take stances on issues based on what they want, or what their notion of an ideal is. Instead, as their own distinct governing entity, they are more likely to base their positions on the practicality of implementing any given law. That is, they act on the basis of whether a law is feasible to implement and enforce, and what sort of financial burden that law imposes on the people of their State. It is less about what they want, and more about what is practical. We are taught that Senators will represent on the behalf of their States, however, it has become more and more apparent that Senators represent to some other allegiance. Often they speak for their party before representing for their State.
The Affordable HealthCare Act is the most notable example of that shift in allegiance. In that case, a majority of Senators voted to enact HealthCare, while a majority of States they spoke for sued to overturn it.
Harry Reid on Shutdown
October 2013 - Government Shutdown or Health Care?
In October of 2013, the US government temporarily shut down. Collectively, the House and Senate failed to reach compromise on bills to fund the government for Fiscal Year 2014. The failure to come to compromise centered on whether to fund the Affordable Health Care Act (also known as ObamaCare). The House had voted to not fund HealthCare. This vote was reportedly based on feedback from their constituents that ObamaCare was too costly, was causing the American companies to cut back on their employment of people, and was not ready for implementation. The Senate voted to fund HealthCare.
It is interesting to note how our Senators and Congressmen phrase their comments on the situation. Representation for the various States legislatures is notably absent in those comments.
What are the Individual State Governments positions on HealthCare? Do they prefer that government shut down? Do they prefer to delay HealthCare? If our federal government were working the way we were taught, we would be hearing news of the individual States legislature’s positions on HealthCare. But we are not. We do not know if the States indicate they are ready to support HealthCare. We do not have insight into the expected impact to each State. At his writing, it seems likely that we will never know.
Senators no longer represent for their States. Our individual states have become irrelevant and merely servants to the federal governance processes.
We need representatives who represent, not career-politicians who regard their congressional seat as a throne. This seems particularly true in the Senate, where representatives do not speak in terms that indicate they are speaking for their State. As this shutdown is resolved, will we begin to hear Senators present their States positions, or will they continue to speak to party rhetoric? Regardless of how we feel about it, the one thing that still remains true is that we are getting what we voted for. The government may be shut down, but life goes on.
More by this Author
This is a title too good to resist. I was visiting Richmond June 10th, 2014, and what transpired was powerful, and should be shared. It is not ALL about politics. This article wrote itself.
It snowed one day, so it was good day to see what could be found online about Open Government. The snow closed the government and everything else in or nearby DC.
Sequestration has been in the news recently, with folks testifying before Congress about how badly it will affect the status quo. This article will suggest positive ways of viewing sequestration.