Why Kicking the Bums Out is Not that Easy
By Alan Stewart Carl | Related entries in NewsGeorge Will takes a look at why it’s so hard to beat incumbents in Congress. He says the system has been rigged with breakwaters to hold incumbents in power.
The breakwater has three componentsâ€â€?gerrymandering, campaign-finance “reforms” and the particular form of profligacy known as earmarks. In state after state, redistricting after the 2000 Census proved that bipartisanshipâ€â€?ritually praised, rarely practicedâ€â€?is often overrated. Democrats and Republicans collaborated in drawing congressional districts that would protect incumbents of both parties. Campaign-finance “reforms,” which make raising money more difficult, are written by incumbents and work to the advantage of… well, take a wild guess. Here is a hint: In the last two election cycles, 98 percent of incumbents seeking re-election won. The explosive and utterly bipartisan growth of earmarksâ€â€?federal spending directed by individual legislators to specific projectsâ€â€?is yet another advantage incumbents have as they toil to get rid of that offensive 2 percent.
I often hear people say they want to “kick the bums out,� but what I think they really mean is they want you to kick your bum out. Their bum is bringing home the pork and, besides, he’s running against an even bigger bum.
The bum-protection program has been one of the only truly bipartisan achievements of the last decade or so. Both parties have agreed they really like power and should be allowed to hold onto it with a minimal amount of hassle. Thus, most congressmen and women are in safe districts so overwhelmingly Democrat or Republican that only a political tsunami could break apart the status-quo.
Even then, challengers must overcome strict fund-raising regulations that make it inordinately difficult to raise a competitive level of funds. These regulations have often been born of good intentions but the effect has been to choke off the money from challengers who do not have the same resources or networks that are available to incumbents.
Don’t get me wrong. There’s nothing inherently wrong with incumbency. But there is something wrong with a lack of choice. And that’s what we have. Too many of us live in districts where a reasonable alternative is not available. Incumbents like it that way, but we don’t have to accept it. We can and should demand reform. Kicking the bums out shouldn’t be so difficult.
This entry was posted on Monday, February 20th, 2006 and is filed under News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
February 20th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
ASC,
Why perpetuate the euphemism of “earmarks”?
Be honest about it!
It is good old pork barrel politics.
Vote buying.
The shades of the “rotten boroughs” of old England (on a grander scale).
The major problem with politics in NZ (and I have no reason to believe that the US differs in any way) is that you and I, the common and garden voters, have no say at all in the selection of the candidates we are expected to vote for.
At least MMP gives me the chance of supporting a good individual candidate while still supporting the party of my choice.
February 20th, 2006 at 4:33 pm
Actually it’s good NEW pork barrel politics as earmarks have really taken off in the last decade. But you’re right. Earmarks sound benign. Maybe we should call them pig ears?
February 20th, 2006 at 4:46 pm
Well, I’m not willing to let voters off the hook that easy. Polls going way back indicate that, in deed, it’s the OTHER guys’ bums they want kicked out.
Remember this poll? Even in the context of that week’s news focus, you got the same indication. At the time, my cynical blogging reaction was simply that the more things change, the more they stay the same. Even without redistricting machinations, I think we’d be faced with the same strong bias toward incumbency. The same “but how we do it here is fine” attitude sort of underpins both realities, I’m thinking.
February 20th, 2006 at 11:23 pm
I don’t think he has ever cared about civil liberties – he sees his
job as protecting us, not protecting our liberties.
February 21st, 2006 at 11:00 am
Redistricting will help soften up the stranglehold of incumbents. So would open primaries. So would an organized independent/centrist community that can raise significant money for candidates so they do not have to pander as much to donors with extreme agendas.