The American Spectator : Hating Congress, Hating Ourselves

Text Size

The Nation's Pulse

Hating Congress, Hating Ourselves

By G. Tracy Mehan, III on 7.26.10 @ 6:07AM

Cognitive dissonance and the body politic.

The recent survey by Gallup indicates that Americans rated Congress dead last among 16 institutions. Only 11 percent of respondents expressed confidence in the deliberative bodies.

This was a drop of 17 percent from last year.

There is, of course, great irony in these numbers, representing a collective, negative judgment on the institution as a whole, despite the fact that incumbents are overwhelmingly re-elected year after year after year. Presumably, Americans feel about their congressmen and women the way they do about lawyers. They hate them all, except for their own.

The reasons for this negative assessment are harder to discern. No doubt, some hate Congress for doing too much. Others hate it for doing too little. So the collective judgment is a pastiche of mutually exclusive views about the role of government, spending, taxation and regulation.

Congress becomes a kind of Rorschach inkblot onto which citizens project their own visions of what they think the nation should or should not be.

Or at least that is what I used to think. Now I am not so sure. I have lived in Washington for almost nine years. During that time, I have observed legion of supplicants coming to town, many of them friends and colleagues, who have one mission and one mission only. That is, they want to lobby their congressperson for money for, fill in the blank, their school, their wastewater plant, their roads, their welfare program, their entitlements, their own precious little earmarks for this or that favored project.

It almost makes you appreciate even the pro-choice and anti-gun lobbies since they are at least focused on matters of principle, no matter how mistaken they may be.

Personally, I share the view that an ever-expanding federal government -- bigger, fatter, spending at an atrocious rate -- leads, inevitably to alienation. Expectations are sky-high as to what it can actually accomplish in a manner which can remotely be termed cost-effective. Disappointment is inevitable.

So there is a kind of cognitive dissonance in play.

Citizens get the government they want in a democracy, especially one that is even more detached from the republican constraints originally put in place by the founders. Egalitarianism combined with a redistributionist mania leads to disenchantment, Big Time, as Vice President Cheney might say.

The other night I had dinner with a friend who is writing a book on the dysfunction of Congress. He seemed to take the view that the problem was driven, primarily, by the insular, self-seeking political culture at the federal level. I argued that the general societal culture drives politics, and there may be something more fundamentally wrong with the body politic itself. My friend agreed this might be true; and we agreed that the two things could interact, synergistically, with each other. He promised to re-read his Tocqueville and consider the matter further.

Last week Anne Applebaum, a columnist for the Washington Post and an intelligent commentator on foreign policy matters, wrote an article entitled, "A government of the people's every wish?"

While launching a couple of snarky shots at the Tea Party movement and Governor Sarah, Applebaum, expressed her concern that Americans really are different than what she has experienced around the world, but not in a good way:

If you don't live in this country all of the time, and I don't, here is what you notice when you come home: Americans -- with their lawsuit culture, their safety obsession and, above all, their addiction to government spending programs -- demand more from their government than just about anybody else in the world.

Applebaum claims Americans "want the government to ensure that every accident and every piece of bad luck is prevented, or that they are fully compensated in the event something goes wrong."

Page: 1 2 >

About the Author

G. Tracy Mehan, III served at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the administrations of both Presidents Bush. He is a consultant in Arlington, Virginia, and an adjunct professor at George Mason University School of Law.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (49) | Leave a comment

Siegfried X| 7.26.10 @ 6:58AM

Conservatives are the SILENT majority.

This is the problem of the silent majority, that conservatives who want to be left alone quietly live their lives, while those who want money from the government travel to Washington DC to get it.

Conservatives are a sleeping giant in a fortress, who only wake up when the liberals attack. Meanwhile those left-wing socialist work 24 hours a day 7 days a week to undermine the fortress. They infiltrate the fortress guards, dig tunnels, rally other enemies to join the siege of the fortress...

That is why the author mostly see liberals who are begging for a handout in Washington DC.

Surfdumb| 7.27.10 @ 1:16AM

Exactly, and the conservatives are more likely to find ways around, through, over and under the Leviathon of bureaucracies, regulators and commissions to avoid gov't control, maintaining their freedom and allowing the free market to continue driving prosperity for the takers and gov't consumers. But now it's different, the tipping point is near with ~50% gov't consumers and people sense that Obama and the Dems are trying to shore up all the pockets and pathways to freedom, which in turn will kill our prosperity. Will the silly-puttty sheep keep buying the central planning con or will they realize we're on the road to serfdom before it's too late and learn to say no mas.

Donna| 7.26.10 @ 7:43AM

I agree that there are more American’s being graduated from government high schools that definitely have the attitudes outlined by Applebaum. It’s disconcerting to see as a conservative because these folks, unless they are deprogrammed, will be very destitute. As a religious conservative, it becomes difficult to reconcile the Bible’s teaching about giving to the poor vs instituting tough love. Teach a Wo/Man to fish feed him for life; give a wo/man fish feed him for a day. What do we do to fix this? Our tax dollars did not go to teach these very fortunate young American’s (free education for the poor) to fish.

PolishKnight| 7.26.10 @ 10:52AM

Donna, I like you "wo/man" term especially in that context.

The notion of a woman supporting herself is both somewhat new (in term of feminism) but also old as time itself since most working class women have HAD to work all along.

Hyperchivalry in the west combined with good ol' victim PC groups politics that the left has exploited spendidly has made women into the single largest commie/leftist voting bloc, including many seemingly conservative women. They are raised to believe that work is for "fun" and "empowerment" while men work because they need to pay the bills. Government is for giving women goodies and a VERY big safety net while, for men, government is largely the guys/girls who come in police uniforms to take them to prison if they mess up or leave them on the streets.

Where is all this going? Until we address the notion of hyperchivalry and feminine entitlement, all other conservative values are going to suffer. Men cannot be knights in shining armor paying all the bills while government squeezes them at every turn.

JP| 7.26.10 @ 7:48AM

Whether we like or dislike our own Congressmen is immaterial. Congress as an institution is broke. It no longer takes its perogatives seriously; incumbency is only a symptom. And yes, Congress is only a relfection of the body politic. But the body politic has been taught that Congress (and by extension, the Federal Government) can do anything. Spending other's people's money is now as American as apple pie.

But not all is lost. Events will soon be upon us. And reality, despite being a tough taskmaster, can show us the way. Within 5 years the federal budget will consume over 55% of all wealth in this nation. To paraphrase Obama, that is unsustainable. Our GDP is barely moving in the positive direction. The GDP is perhaps $12 trillion. In 5 years, the federal budget will be over $6 trillion (thanks to the combined Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security spend). Only Congress can do something about those entitlements. But don't think for a minute the current crop of GOP and Dems are up to the task. Nope. That unenviable task (reducing entitlements by half) will be up to new crop of politicians.

Shamus| 7.26.10 @ 6:13PM

While the state penitentiary is a necessary institution, the people in it get no public acclaim. Likewise, Congress is a necessary institution, and the people in it get no public acclaim. But if those in Congress joined those in the penitentiary, this would garner great public acclaim.

randy| 7.27.10 @ 2:53AM

what a wonderful plan politicians in prison hooray! but i really would like to see a few at the end of a hemp rope for treason

vtwin| 7.26.10 @ 7:00PM

Our national debt of $13 trillion is NOT the result of either Medicare or Social Security spending. In fact their respective trust funds are both running surpluses totaling over $4.8 trillion. So unless you think we have spent $13 trillion on Medicaid you should look elsewhere. Like the massive tax cuts enjoyed by the wealthiest American, at 15% capital gains is taxed at a lower tax rate than many workers’ wages, interest alone because of these unwise tax cuts totaled $260 billion in 2009, annual defense related spending is over $1 trillion per year, add to this total the Iraq and Afghanistan wars trillions more. Even the military buildup in the 1980s was paid for with borrowed money.

Tim*| 7.26.10 @ 8:15PM

The Buck Stops Here .

"Total federal government debt rose past $13 trillion for the first time in June 2010 and is on track to surpass U.S. Gross Domestic Product by the year 2012, according to projections just issued by the International Monetary Fund
.

Part of the problem is that the U.S. economy is not growing. The stimulus spending that President Obama and the Democrats who control Congress said would solve the problem and bring about an early end to the recession has not worked as advertized, leaving unemployment figures at their highest point in decades and doing little to spark productive economic activity.

Right now, according to a variety of estimates, the U.S. economy, if it grows, will do so at something less than its statistical average in the latter half of the 20th century, which puts it at below 3.2 percent. "

The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates .

Remember In November .

Purpleguy| 7.26.10 @ 9:32PM

As if the Tea Party has any solutions ... please ... Republicans gave us approx. 12 Trillion in debt, so don't even begin to preach to the Democratic Party. I know, I know, it's the narrative from the Reagan days, Democrats are tax and spend - trouble is, the Republicans are borrow and spend - that's where the debt came from Chuckles. Look it up - it's a historical fact and easily googled. Here's how you do it.. you type in "National Debt to GDP %" and review what pops up... Even YOU can do it now.
In fact the only surpluses in recent times came under Clinton. Reagan, Bush I and Bush II were all deficit spending writ huge!

Cheryl in NC| 7.29.10 @ 1:00PM

As far as I know, the TEA Party movement is not about supporting Republicans. Rather it is about supporting the U.S. Constitution and ridding the government of progressives in both parties.

Convet| 7.29.10 @ 5:42PM

There you go again...

Lord Karth| 7.28.10 @ 7:13PM

$ 130 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities can't be all bad.....

Lu Dumak| 7.26.10 @ 8:04AM

Charity is reaching into your pocket to give money to help others. Reaching into some one elses pocket to give money to someone is STEALING even if it is Government doing the stealing. It is time for some very tough love to get the losers and welfare Queens off the dole.

Purpleguy| 7.26.10 @ 9:34PM

Welfare Queens is so passe... so eighties of you. They don't exist, if they ever did - but were a convenient bogie man or woman in this case. While y'all rail against tax and spend, Republicans quietly borrowed and spent 12 Trillion Dollars and now - POP oh, my it's such a problem... bunch of hypocrites and the American people are wise to your shenanigans and propaganda.

Convet| 7.29.10 @ 5:43PM

Look in the mirror, MORON!

Curly Smith| 7.26.10 @ 8:05AM

I'd have to go with your friend and the self-seeking political culture.

Compare and contrast the Reagan and Clinton Presidencies. One enacted policies that appealed to our better natures while the other appealed to our baser instincts. One urged discipline and self-reliance, one touted the "virtues" of debauchery and dependence. One rewarded positive behaviors that uplifted society, one rewarded negative behaviors that tear society apart. One believed that the power was with the people, one believed that the power was with the politicians.

But, sadly, the Era of Reagan is over. It died with the election of George H.W. "read my lips, voodoo economics" Bush. It was briefly resurrected by "The Contract with America" but George W. Bush was on hand to drive a "compassionate conservative" stake through the heart of the body politic.

Siegfried X| 7.26.10 @ 9:16AM

There is a spark of light at the end of the tunnel, and a small hope that the Republican Establishment may be forced to develop a platform.

Establishment Republicans are starting to see that the old approach has run out of gas. People see that the Republican Party doesn't have any conservative clothes on. Between the tea party and the democrats bashing the lack of Republican agenda, the Republican Party can no longer just win by coasting.

Franklin| 7.26.10 @ 9:36PM

You are right - the Republicans are wandering in the dark, lost their way, have no leaders ... Tea Party to the rescue. Throw out Democrats and Republicans - it's our only hope.

Louis Jenkins| 7.26.10 @ 8:43AM

...to deliver the "ludicrous levels of personal and political safety."

And the American public will not sleep until everyone of us are wrapped in a cocoon of bubble wrap. Sad. Some of us don't want the wrapping. How can it be changed? There's not enough money to go around, and we're going to have to deal with it.

Purpleguy| 7.26.10 @ 9:37PM

Well, if everyone who complains about the wrapping gave it back, there'd be plenty of money to go around... so do so please or shut up while you enjoy the wrapping.

Purpleguy| 7.29.10 @ 5:44PM

I'm dumb as a stump.

John Cooper| 7.26.10 @ 9:32AM

The author mistakes the hand-out trolls slimming their way around the seat of government as representative of all Americans.
They may be Americans, but they are a minority. Most folks who aren't looking for something for nothing, which is the vast majority, want to be left alone to pursue their own vision of happiness.
The "we get the government we deserve" argument is old and boring, and only true in the sense that "We the People" have left our government to reprobates, Federal trough feeders and lawyers.
They have built a ruling class that despises us and the "God-Given" freedom we declared at our founding.
It is time to dismantle the most Un-American of concepts, which is a Ruling Class.
It is time to for us to grab back the reigns.

Purpleguy| 7.26.10 @ 9:39PM

While I don't agree with all you say, there is a Ruling Class in America, and thus it was always so. The Founders of the Country were not the poor, unwashed masses of people, not the slaves, not the indentured servants .. no they were the landed gentry - the Ruling Class; and thus it has always been, so it IS American, and it is an American dream to aspire to that Ruling class...

Purpleguy| 7.29.10 @ 5:45PM

I pull the wings off of flies for the SEIU.

Padoux| 7.26.10 @ 11:25AM

As a retired attorney I have seen much of out litigation obsessed society. I once defended the state of Louisiana against a law suit claiming the state was responsible for drunk driver hitting and injuring a bunch of bar patrons arguing at night in the middle of a state highway. We prevailed, but on after a long trial, where we were "hometowned" by the judge but we won on abbeal, but after huge expense of the state. This is only the tip of the iceberg. Thousands of cases are settled to avoid litigation costs and risks that have no merit. Businesses, playgrounds, manufactures, doctors, go to huge expense in their businesses to avoid law suits. The cost of liability insurance is only one factor driving up that cost. On TV we are bombarded by ads from ravenous "lawyers" soliciting law suits for auto accidents, class actions against drug companies a la our classy buddy, John Edwards. We are a nation of whiners, cry babies, and complainers, and have reduced our tort system to a welfare program. All this of course does not even include all the law suits that can be filed under umpteen federal laws creating causes of action for the sharks to feed on, all this in the name of "rights." It's all about money, period, it's disgusting.

Puprle Lips| 7.26.10 @ 2:01PM

Litigation is redistriubtion by other means. It has nothing to do with "rights".

Siegfried X| 7.26.10 @ 2:18PM

True. The liberals redistribute with taxes and with law suits. A third way they redistribute is to take over churches, then replaced God with the "social gospel" that preaches "social justice".

Purpleguy| 7.26.10 @ 9:42PM

And, yet the right wing redistributes wealth by taking from their children and grandchildren to give to themselves and their rich kind. If you doubt, go look up who's added approx. 12 Trillion to the National Debt in the last 30 years - it wasn't the Democrats, liberals or progressives! Republicans want, they just want someone else to pay for it. Democrats want YOU to pay your way you selfish, greedy bastard.

Cheryl in NC| 7.29.10 @ 1:23PM

...looks to me that the Democrats want you to pay them...via bureaucrat and union salaries and pensions. Obama /Pelosi / Reid have quadrupled the debt in 18 mos. in order to grow their machine. Progressives in either party are on the take from any big money source they can suck into their game. I'm liking the idea of more representation discussed here....have not heard that idea previously. Smaller districts = more accountability to the voters.

On the subject of Americans looking for support in the courts and from government...progressives have taught this in the schools for 100 yrs. now, ignoring the Constitution. Read deToqueville for predictions. Read Marx for ideology. Read Alinsky for techniques. As for whether this is different from the rest of the world....I don't think so. Socialist Europe? China? Russia? They are all about government control of everything. I disagree with this author's opinion to the extent that it isn't All Americans who are behaving this way. It is, however, the unfortunate trend being shoved down our throats.

Purpleguy| 7.29.10 @ 5:46PM

Why should I care about money? I work for Soros!

James| 7.26.10 @ 1:47PM

The underlying cause of all of this is that government, particularly national government, has become our god. We expect it to feed us, clothe us, protect us, heal us, reform us, transform us, etc. etc. It in turn demands more and more control over us to attempt to accomplish these ends. There is no taming this beast--it must be starved into submission by returning to the pre-1913 levels of taxation in this country:

Petronius| 7.26.10 @ 3:10PM

The government will starve and so will we when all capital has been confiscated and consumed just as the Soviet Union did. Only then will the worthless Liberals starve too. Those who can live in the wild and survive outside the cities will then take over. I cannot wait to witness the carnage. We will be rid of more idiots than died in the plagues of the 14th century.

David| 7.26.10 @ 4:21PM

Padoux, are you sure you are an attorney? You said you won on "abbeal". Now, usually I would think that is a typo, but the "b" and the "p" are nowhere near each other on the keyboard.

That said, I agree with you.

Albert| 7.26.10 @ 5:55PM

The real problem with Congress is in the House of Representatives. The House is too small. Yes, you read that correctly, too SMALL. Generally speaking, power derives from the exclusivity of office. That is, a King or Emperor rules absolutely, by himself. An oligarchy like a Politburo or Junta, rules as a small cabal, but power is at least slightly distributed. At the other end of the scale would be a representative Republic, supposedly like ours, but our government has grown in power as it has shrunk in representation. A House district has about 690,000 citizens on average (300 million population divided by 435 seats). Being one out of only 435, a Congressman is thus a big fish in a very small pond and consequently weilds great power. His district is very large and requires large amounts of money to mount a respectable campaign, thus eliminating many otherwise worthy challengers. The reliance on BIG money makes the Congressman beholden to whoever funds his campaign, instead of the actual voters. Let's reverse this. Instead of 690,000, we could make a district maybe 70,000. This would make a House of over 4,000 members. The result of this would be that a Congressman would be a small fish in a much larger pond, reducing his power and making his value to special interests far less. And in a district of 70,000 (that's about one filled Football Stadium) alternate candidates could literally campaign door to door, on a shoestring budget, without BIG money from special interests (I have no problem with small special interests, since I am my own "special interest") and 3rd Parties could actually win seats. A Congressman therefore would be beholden to the voters, not Goldman Sachs and the leadership of the Major Party of his choice. Challengers could be ordinary people and they could have a fair shot at election. Also, turnover would be very high, reducing the prevalence of career politicians. A District in the House of Representatives today is for all practical purposes a fiefdom, granted by the Party and held for sometimes decades by the same person. Congress should not be a collection of fiefdoms held by our "leaders." I want more actual representation, and thus less "leadership." Enlarging the House is the way to do it, and indeed how it was done before. From the founding through the early 1910's, the House increased in membership commensurate with the nation's population, based on the census every ten years. But that stopped after Arizona and New Mexisco were admitted, and the House has remained at 435 members ever since, even as the population has grown to about triple of 1910's. Congress can do this by simple legislation, since the Constitution only says that Congress shall have no more than 1 member per 30,000 people, which is far less than the 690,000 we have now. (1 per 30,000 would be 10,000 members of the House, by the way.) This can be done, and I think it should be done, if we want to arrest the uncontrolled usurpations of the Federal Government. But it will only happen if We the People make it happen.

Purpleguy| 7.26.10 @ 9:45PM

Boy would that be fun - it would take them a lifetime to redistrict the House districts...

Purpleguy| 7.29.10 @ 5:48PM

Elbridge Gerry is my hero!

Rich Matarese| 7.27.10 @ 6:02AM

--
This is, of course, not a novel proposition, but has been bruited about for many years (to my knowledge) .

I wholly endorse the idea of a congressional district consisting of no more than 70,000 to 100,000 people, and the substantial enlargement of the U.S. House of Representatives to ensure a cadre of legislators who more truly reflected the diversity of opinion and interests in our nation.

As an alternative, however, why not enable the average voter to allocate his representation in the U.S. House of Representatives on a "proxy" basis?

Consider that of the 435 sitting members of the House, a private citizen might decide to allocate his representation - as he pleases - to any individual he likes, not just the career politician chosen by the dominant national party in his district.

When the votes are tallied in the House, each member's Yea or Nay is then WEIGHTED according to the number of proxies he represents.

Thus Dr. Ron Paul might accumulate so much in the way of support that he alone could effectively screw Nancy Pelosi's faction unto death by collating all the constitutionalists in the country in effective opposition.

With the Internet permitting the private citizenry to make such allocations of "proxy" empowerment flexibly and swiftly, we might see real representation restored without sustaining the cumbersome increase of suckers-at-the-public-trough that a 4,000-member House would engender.
--

Albert| 7.27.10 @ 11:31AM

These are the usual responses to this proposal. "That's too many Congressmen. It would cost too much. It's impossible to reapportion," etc... Reapportioning under this system would be no more difficult than it is now. Indeed it would be simpler since it would be a waste of time to try to gerrymander such small districts. Minority representation would naturally be more proportionate to the actual population. Cost? So there are 4,000 Congressmen drawing a salary. Congress can also eliminate the perks, the free travel (except for military standby), the private jets, the generous housing allowances (the government could provide dormitories for Congressmen, and any better housing would be paid by the Congressman himself), and other extravagancies. I would rather pay 4,000 Congressmen's salaries through my taxes than the astronomical sums of money that our current 435 members are spending. Funding 4,000 Congressmen is far cheaper than the massive redistribution programs that are bankrupting this country right now. And yes, it IS an either-or situation. Small districts mean better control over Congress by the People. It means higher turnover. It means fewer career politicians and even those who stay for decades have little power. It means a Congressman's basic political motivation changes from personal aggrandizement to actual representation. It eliminates BIG money from House races. And if someone can buy a Congressman, he can only buy small stooges who, as stated before, have little power. It would also lead for a return to Federalism, where the States and local Governments have the most authority and the US Government is limited to national defense, protection of rights, maintaining a Court system, and the very few other legitimate Constitutional functions delegated to it. Consider the voter too. Voter apathy is pervasive. And I believe the reason is large House districts. My vote is meaningless. That's not an emotional reaction to being in George Miller's district. It is a statement of fact. In my 38 years of voting I have NEVER voted for a successful House candidate. I am not represented in Congress and George Miller cares not a whit for my vote. He does not need it. In a smaller district, he would need it. Do the math. From a voter's perspective, which is better? 1 vote out of 690,000? Or 1 out of 70,000? And if George Miller actually were to need my vote, he might then actually LISTEN to my concerns. What a novel idea! If votes count, voters will be more involved. When votes are meaningless, voters drift away. I would like my vote to count.

Purpleguy| 7.28.10 @ 9:25PM

Are you sure the voters would vote your way?

Albert| 7.29.10 @ 10:51AM

It does not matter. Voters would vote for someone who represented THEM! And if they find out he's a flack, then someone can run against him the next time. The difference is in smaller districts challengers have real opportunities, since BIG money is no longer a factor. This would provide for FAIR representation. The key is not that voters would vote "my way" or "your way" or any way in particular, but that they would vote for their own interests and have an opportunity to influence their own representative. This is simply not the case now.

Purpleguy| 7.29.10 @ 5:49PM

I'll make them vote MY WAY at the point of a gun!

Albert| 7.29.10 @ 6:56PM

I assume this is a joke, and it's not very funny.

randy| 7.27.10 @ 2:57AM

I really hope that when this is all over my grandchildren still have a nation that is free ....

if i had to make a decision today weather they would , i would be very unhappy. ... the leaders of today are wannabe rulers not servants of the people

Rich Matarese| 7.27.10 @ 5:54AM

--
Consider that the reason why "incumbents are overwhelmingly re-elected year after year after year" is that those Americans who bother to vote anymore simply do not perceive the candidates offered by the opposing faction of the big, bipartisan Boot-On-Your-Neck Party to be in any substantive way different from the scum-sucking incumbents.

As the saying goes, "If voting could really change anything, they'd make it illegal."
--

Gregor Shamish| 7.27.10 @ 8:07AM

Old Socialist Joke. "The Government has lost confidence in the People. It has Voted to get itself a New People!"

RCV| 7.28.10 @ 2:06PM

LOL. Actually, that's what Chaing Kai-Shek and his government did when they were driven from China: moved to Taiwan and adopted the Taiwanese as their New People.