A survey taken in February, 2017 of 1,571 political
scientists on democracy in America reveals a possible problem regarding the
extent to which government officials are sanctioned for misconduct. More than
half of the respondents believed that the United States only partly meets or
does not meet this criterion, whereas about 80 percent of the scholars insisted
that the criterion is essential or important to democracy.[1]
I submit that partisanship is a major obstacle to performance being able to
meet expectations.
When the survey was released, Congress was on a week’s
recess. Representatives and senators alike were facing contentious constituents
back in the districts and states, respectively. An estimated 1,000 people
attended Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) “town meeting.” Recalling the yelling and
screaming, he later said, “I thought it was intended to bully and intimidate
[me].”[2]
Democracy is messy. Moreover, the making of law, which binds an otherwise free
people, is inherently conflictual as different interests and ideologies contend
for influence on the final legislative output. Given the delegated trust placed
in elected legislative representatives, their misconduct should be subject to
real sanctions.
Ideally, misconduct should
be extended to placing party above integrity—that is to say, giving elected
officials a pass on their misconduct simply because they are of the same
political party. Constituents can be out in front of even veteran members of
Congress on this point. In his “town hall,” Chaffetz heard a constituent insist
that Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives should investigate
President Trump’s conflicts of interest for instances of impropriety.[3]
Even though much of the federal conflicts-of-interest law does not apply to the
president, the American people arguably should know of actual instances in
which the president has or is exploiting the relationship between his
governmental power and business interests. Party should not trump integrity as
concerning the obligation of members
of Congress to provide a check on the executive branch, including the
president.
I suspect that the force of partisanship on members of
Congress stems in part from the political atmosphere in Washington, D.C.—such that
the role of partisanship is perceived as
being more significant than it should be and is to constituents back home. Of
course, the threats doubtlessly made from higher in the party “food chain”
provides an impetus to members of Congress to look the other way concerning the
possible misconduct of colleagues of the same party. That a constituent expects
her elected representative to put integrity before party in regard to
investigating misconduct shows just how decadent the inbred culture of a
political elite can be, even in a viable democracy. In other words, it is
telling when an angry constituent is the adult and her representative is the child.
Democratic theory holds just the opposite—namely, that an elected
representative can withstand the momentary excessive passions of the moment
that have no such check in a direct democracy, wherein people vote directly on
proposed laws such as was the case in ancient Athens. Put another way, representative democracy itself is a
check against mob rule. It is telling, therefore, when someone from an angry
mob is the adult in the room.
[1]
Claire C. Miller and Kevin Quealy, “Democracy
in America: How Is It Doing?” The New
York Times, February 23, 2017.
[2]
Andrew Kaczynski, “Rep.
Jason Chaffetz: People at My Town Hall ‘Intended to Bully and Intimidate’ Me,”
CNN.com, February 23, 2017.
[3] “Morning
Edition,” National Public Radio, February 23, 2017.
