Incumbents and Partisanship

Regardless of whether you view the recent passage of the health care overhaul bill as a heaven-sent reform, or the beginning of the United States' path to evil socialism, it is impossible to ignore the fact that partisan forces were hard at work before, and even during, the historic vote.

With midterm elections looming, the 34 Democratic Representatives who voted against the health care bill are being specifically targeted by much of the Democratic leadership. To summarize a recent Politico article, Nancy Pelosi has been solicited to pressure Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-SC) to cancel his trip to Georgia, the apparent purpose of which is to emphasize fellow Democrat Rep. John Barrow's "nay" vote on the health care bill. The Georgia Dem's supporters worry that Clyburn's trip will prevent Barrow's re-nomination in the upcoming primary.

I have two issues concerning this particular situation: the incumbency advantage and the persistent pressure to obey party lines in all voting cases.

The Congressional practice of seniority-based leadership is founded entirely upon re-election every two (or six) years. While many incumbents on both sides of the aisle have become nationally admired (the late Ted Kennedy, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and former presidential candidate John McCain, to name a few), the writers of the Constitution did not advocate that members of Congress serve for decades at time. The problem with the consistent re-election of incumbents is two fold: freshmen Senators and Representatives lose much of the idealism that they originally held when they arrived in Washington (which Terence Samuel explores in his new book The Upper House, which I am eager to read); and, very often, these members of Congress who have served for two decades become out of touch with the current political problems of the day. Through constituent out-reach, and the casework of their Congressional staffs, long-term incumbents attempt to negate their dated political expertise. However, the platform that brought a Representative to office in 1986 has little political relevance to the issues facing the nation in 2010.

On the other side of the situation presented by the above article, I must ask, what is so wrong with breaking party lines?! While I, of course, wholeheartedly supported the health care reform bill (and believe that every member of Congress should have voted in favor of it), almost three dozen House Democrats did not agree with me. Clyburn is, in essence, punishing Barrow for voting against the health care bill, seemingly in hopes that it will damage Barrow's chances in the Democratic primary. Candidates are elected to Congress because voters trust them to make national decisions, not just follow party leadership and party leadership needs to learn to let their fellow Congress(wo)men do just that. While gaining "yay" or "nay" votes is an obvious necessity in the House or Senate, our elected officials should be allowed to vote according to their own political values, not those of a specific party. However, as a result of the current Congressional environment, the influence of leadership makes the actual floor voting process much less democratic.