In The Politics of Power, the authors pretty much spell it out for you in the first two pages of chapter 7 of their book. In the beginning of the chapter, they talk about Woodrow Wilson and how he felt about congress, he believed, "that unquestionably, the predominant and controlling force, the center and source of all motive and regulative power, is Congress." "Rather than applaud this situation, Wilson was suspicious of congressional power" the authors write. They go on to say, "Congress, he concluded, was too unwieldy, too unpredictable, and too interested in patronage and spending to produce good government" (Katznelson, Kesselman, Draper, 169). Further down the page, the authors go on to say, "Americans consistently express less confidence in Congress than in either the presidency or the Supreme Court. While confidence in all political institutions has declined, non is as low in public esteem as Congress." The authors then quote Political scientists John Hibbing and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse who argue, "that the public's contempt for Congress is not a reaction to the policies it adopts but to the procedures Congress uses to arrive at them. Congress is perceived as inefficient, loaded with staffers, committees and perquisites that suit the selfish needs of members of Congress but do little to meet the needs of the country" (Katznelson, Kesselman, Draper, 169). Further they state that, "The public lacks respect for Congress because it is perceived as captured by special interests who contribute to congressional campaigns, employ lobbyists to influence legislation, and enjoy special access to its members" (Katznelson, Kellelman, Draper, 169-170). It is interesting to find out how much Congress is untrusted and how many people are involved in helping Congress out. It seems that Congress is not really as interested in helping out the country as they are in getting what they need and want.
The authors go on to say however that, "On the one hand, Congress is the most open and accessible of the three branches of the federal government. As a result, it reflects and represents public opinion well. Members of Congress have to be alert to shifts in the public mood because their jobs depend on it. This means that Congress is often responsive to pressures from less privileged groups because, according to Elizabeth Sanders, its members are "bound to local constituencies," making them "exquisitely sensitive to the economic pain and moral outrage of their electorates", (Katznelson, Kellelman, Draper, 170). So to me this makes me feel like even though they want to be selfish and have definitely said one thing to get elected to office and then do something completely different, if they don't to some extent listen to the public their job and power are on the line. The downfall to the Congress being so easily accessible though is that the wealthy can get to them easier and pay them to get their points across. Now to me this is not too bad because I do feel that if they are supporting them, then they should get something out of it as well. The authors write, "On the other hand, Congress's openness also makes it easier for the most privileged to exert influence within it. They are best positioned to take advantage of Congress's accessibility. The wealthy are more likely to vote, contact their senator or representative, donate money, and belong to interest groups" (Katznelson, Kellelman, Draper, 170). To me it seems fine that the Congress does represent the wealthy to some extent, they are very involved in politics, weather it be for selfish reasons or not, the wealthy help support the government.
So all in all, for the most part it seems to me that the Congress limits the authentic representation based on its current structure.
No comments:
Post a Comment