Many have hailed House Democrats -- all 108 of them -- for balking at the nasty deal to cut spending by nearly $40 billion that the President and Speaker of the House reached last week. By voting against the measure, several pundits have suggested that it shows that some Democrats are willing to buck the president's leadership when they think that leadership is lacking.
I don't know about you, but I'm rather cynical about this analysis. Mind you, I would love to sing their plaudits -- I would relish stating that I believe that most of them stood up for the vast majority. It would provide me and my countrymen with a sliver of hope. The problem is that I simply don't think most of them showed any real courage.
When a vote is pretty much "in the bag," it affords certain representatives -- those from either predominantly liberal or conservative districts -- the space to dissent. By dissenting, they earn greater credibility with voters and this will help to insure each is re-elected. In other words, they can voice their "convictions" while knowing that the specific piece of legislation will pass or not pass -- whichever the ruling interests desire.
From my standpoint, real legislative courage is exhibited when the result is NOT assured. At those times when the vote could go either way and a legislator sticks to their convictions -- whether I agree with those convictions or not -- that can be a courageous act. In my book, it is particularly courageous when those convictions go against the wishes of the leadership of THEIR political party and/or the ruling oligarchy.
This leads me to wonder how many of those 108 would have voted against this bill IF they felt their vote might have impacted its passage. My guess is that the vast majority would have switched sides and voted FOR it. I'm not suggesting that all of them would have done this -- I think of several members of the Progressive Caucus who would have stood their ground no matter what -- but I AM convinced enough of them would have had a sudden "change of heart" to insure passage.
I realize that sounds very cynical, but recent history suggests it is a realistic expectation.
I don't know about you, but I'm rather cynical about this analysis. Mind you, I would love to sing their plaudits -- I would relish stating that I believe that most of them stood up for the vast majority. It would provide me and my countrymen with a sliver of hope. The problem is that I simply don't think most of them showed any real courage.
When a vote is pretty much "in the bag," it affords certain representatives -- those from either predominantly liberal or conservative districts -- the space to dissent. By dissenting, they earn greater credibility with voters and this will help to insure each is re-elected. In other words, they can voice their "convictions" while knowing that the specific piece of legislation will pass or not pass -- whichever the ruling interests desire.
From my standpoint, real legislative courage is exhibited when the result is NOT assured. At those times when the vote could go either way and a legislator sticks to their convictions -- whether I agree with those convictions or not -- that can be a courageous act. In my book, it is particularly courageous when those convictions go against the wishes of the leadership of THEIR political party and/or the ruling oligarchy.
This leads me to wonder how many of those 108 would have voted against this bill IF they felt their vote might have impacted its passage. My guess is that the vast majority would have switched sides and voted FOR it. I'm not suggesting that all of them would have done this -- I think of several members of the Progressive Caucus who would have stood their ground no matter what -- but I AM convinced enough of them would have had a sudden "change of heart" to insure passage.
I realize that sounds very cynical, but recent history suggests it is a realistic expectation.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are unmoderated, so you can write whatever you want.