Published: October 13, 2008 06:14 pm            

CURRAN: Are voters in control?

The preamble to the U.S. Constitution begins, “We the People ...” Prior to writing the Constitution and creating the government it describes, Americans rebelled, largely over “taxation without representation.” At Gettysburg, Abraham Lincoln famously spoke of a government, “of the people, by the people, for the people.”

Is our government really of us, by us and for us? Do our elected officials really represent us or simply rule us? The recent drama surrounding the massive financial bailout may offer some clues, though the outcome doesn’t bode well for our ideas of representative government.

The short version of the progression of the bailout plan from its initial proposal to its passing is as follows: It was proposed by the administration with a huge price tag and no oversight; the House of Representatives added some provisions including those for greater oversight and limits on executive pay; the House then rejected it with conservatives of both parties casting most of the “no” votes; the Senate then added nearly $200 billion dollars worth of “sweeteners” (sure, pork can be sweet) to the bill and passed it; the House then squeezed out a couple more “yes” votes, and the sweet Senate version passed and was signed by President Bush.

While Congress was writing and wrangling, we the people were interacting with our congressional representatives like never before. The majority of calls, e-mails and faxes were received in the first few days and were mostly from average, individual citizens overwhelmingly opposing the bailout. These calls strongly influenced the initial House vote for those representatives in competitive races this Fall such as our own Rep. Baron Hill, D.

However, after the first round of calls from angry constituents, many representatives began receiving calls from interest groups in favor of the bailout proposal. Though fewer, these calls may have influenced some votes.

Legislatures are supposed to be the most representative part of government. The federal government and most states have a body called the “House of Representatives.” It is this particular body that is supposed to most closely resemble the people who sent them there. Though state rules vary, at the federal level, all representatives are elected every two years.

This is in contrast to the Senate. Expected to be sober, steady statesmen, Senators serve six-year terms with only one-third of the body elected every two years. It’s understood the House will be closer to the people and better represent their views as they must more frequently ask to keep their jobs. So did it work as intended this time?

Maybe. Those elder statesmen in the Senate may have — in their supposed greater wisdom — truly believed we would all suffer unbearably without the bailout package. Perhaps they only added those sweeteners to get their House colleagues to realize the importance. It’s is a tough scenario to buy.

Easier to imagine are elected officials convinced we will forget they ignored our wishes by the time they’re up for re-election. Being in power in Washington for six years at a time provides frequent opportunities bond with lobbyists. Most Senators really have little in common with mythical Joe Six Pack. While the Senate was sweetening, the interest groups had time to persuade representatives in the lower house.

The degree of representation could be partial. Even though the bailout went through anyway and ended up costing more than initially proposed, it could be argued the loud reaction of constituents at least slowed the process down enough to allow more debate and transparency.

“We all owe a debt of thanks to the populists, the soldiers of the far left and (gulp) the far right, the know-nothings and the know-it-alls, the income redistributionists and the free-market fundamentalists — all the skeptics who refused to be steamrolled by the Bush administration’s $700 billion financial bailout plan until we at least had some understanding of what we were doing and why,” Eugene Robinson, Washington Post columnist opined.

This suggests government is working for us. We don’t realize what is good. Among politicians and those that study them, there is disagreement about whether a legislator should act as a trustee or delegate for his constituents. A delegate represents the sentiments of their constituents; a trustee uses their own judgment to act in their constituents’ best interests.

A recent poll showed twice as many Hoosiers opposed the bailout as supported it. Five of nine Indiana representatives to Congress opposed the final version of the bailout while both Senators supported it. All three candidates running for the 9th District have said they opposed the bailout, so maybe locally, we can expect some representation. Is it by us or of us?

Libertarian Eric Schansberg opposed the bill on principle, calling it not constitutional, practical or ethical. Hill is trying to hold on to his job, and as a member of the (relatively) fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democrats — a group more consistently opposed to deficit spending than Republicans — Hill could hardly be enthusiastic about $700 billion of deficit spending. Maybe those that would represent us simply resemble us.

Here’s something to ponder in that vein: A bumper sticker spotted on a beat-up, 20-year-old Ford Ranger reads, “Mike Sodrel: One of Us.”



Jeffersonville resident Kelley Curran wonders when “of the people, by the people and for the people” changed to “screw the people.” All you people can write her at kelinawriterhat@aol.com.

        

• Click to discuss this story with other readers on our forums.