Comment ( add 5)So if the time of the Members gets more and more reduced by fundraising duties, does the power shift to the full-time staff? Any thoughts?
Response
As we begin our focus on Congress in this class, I find it to be interesting timing. Many of the categories discussed in this week's lesson are happening right in front of us. I could not help but have examples streaming through my head while reading this week's lesson and assigned reading.
Possible the most interesting category was plebiscitary politics. I say this due to all of the direct contact politicians from Congress are having with the American people. Last night I just began flipping through the news outlets on television and every show had at least one sitting member of congress on the show. Then I searched a few popular political hashtags on twitter and it was filled with congressional members' accounts.
As posed in this week's lesson, is all of this "camera time" causing things in Congress to be at a stalemate? No more is it the compromising body (Grulke, 2018). I feel that this is an area where things could be genuinely discussed and debated between Congress and constituents, however the constant state of campaigning (which is another category but I believe these two are linked) does not lend the interaction to be genuine and mutually beneficial, rather it is used to maintain and garner more votes. Much like how town hall meetings were used before the age of 24 hour news and social media, politicians have the ability and opportunity to reach out to more people than ever before through these "tools"; I just do not believe they are using them properly, rather just for self-gain.
As I mentioned above, I believe the categories plebiscitary politics and governing as campaigning have become intrinsically linked. The constant state of campaigning by congressional members, specifically in the House of Representatives, means less time actually governing (Grulke, 2018). Utilizing the "tools" mention above in the plebiscitary category, members are always seeking more contributions from donors and making sure they are saying whatever they need to, to achieve more votes; not focused on making the best decisions for the majority or protecting the minority.
With the having a two year term cycle for members of the House, the minute they have secured another term they are out campaigning immediately for the next election. That is just ludicrous! I do not believe in "career" politicians, especially in theHouse of Representatives since the Framer's intended the House to be comprised of the "common citizen". Perhaps it is time to impose term limits for members of Congress? You get two years to work to make a difference, that is it; make those two years count! Having term limits would also allow for more citizens to be in Congress, mixing it up (Morgan, 2017). This way there is more diversity working its way through congress, not just attorneys and wealthy business people (speaking in general).
A third category discussed this week was changing membership and control of Congress. Major shifts have occurred several times throughout the last century, but possibly the most interesting shift was after the election of Barack Obama. The Republican Party began to fracture as upset conservatives, specifically middle-class white Americans, became energized and formed the Tea Party (Williamson, 2011).
This movement had some momentum going into the mid-term elections in 2010 and beyond, but recently does not seem to be as robust as they once were. It will be interesting to see if a major change will occur in the 2018 mid-term elections as Democrats have become energized following the election of President Trump.