In 2014, Dave Brat, an economics professor for a small liberal arts college in Virginia, pulled off what was previously deemed impossible. He defeated one of the Republican Party’s golden boys, Eric Cantor. In a primary. Cantor at that time was House Majority Leader, maneuvering for his spot in line for the House speakership. However, Cantor’s constituents had grown disconnected from him, feeling as if he paid more attention to a national stage with little leftover for Virginians. The fact that he spent $168,000 at a steakhouse during his campaign did not help. Fertile ground to sow discontent was thus tilled by Brat, a Tea Party backed Republican who promised greater connectivity with and focus on the people of the 7th District.
Now, it seems, Brat wishes his constituents were a little less connected.
An early supporter of Donald Trump, Brat has backed many of the new President’s policies, including the construction of a border wall with Mexico and the Muslim Ban – both of which were done by executive fiat. Brat’s constituents, like many Americans, are angered by the substance and style of Trump’s governance and have mobilized to let their Representative know. However, Brat’s availability seems to be limited to the conservative groups that brought him to office, having more visits with the Heritage Foundation in the past year than town hall meetings with his district. Indeed, Brat has actually complained about the increased engagement by his constituents, especially the women, saying that “the women are in my grill no matter where I go.”
On January 31st, Dave Brat hosted a Facebook Live Town Hall, providing only about 7 hours’ notice to his district. Nevertheless, more than one thousand people logged in, filling the question box seven thousand fold. Brat sat in a nondescript wood-paneled room, with a staffer and her laptop next to him, expressing incredulity at accusations of his lack of accessibility. Throughout the broadcast, viewers were able to click on emoticons to provide real-time reaction to his statements, and the running stream of angry red faces flowed under him for most of the broadcast.
Unfortunately, either due to format or design, the vast majority of the questions were left unasked. And even more unfortunately, the vast majority of the questions asked were left unanswered.
To that end, as Brat explores different methods for increased connectivity, I, as his constituent, propose the 7th District issues him a simple, short-answer, written exam.
I imagine that during his years as a professor, he created many of these as a way to gauge his students’ understanding of the course material and their ability to communicate clearly in a well-reasoned response. In the same vein, that is exactly what his constituents are seeking – a way to gauge his understanding of our concerns, as well as his ability to communicate a clear, well-reasoned response to us.
Questions he could expect on this exam may include the following (all of which were directly asked of him this evening and left unanswered):
1. With your long-standing focus upon reducing the federal deficit and debt, please reconcile your support of the construction of a border wall with Mexico that has been conservatively estimated to cost $15 billion? Compare and contrast your response with your previous opposition to funding for the Flint water crisis in Michigan and efforts to combat Zika in Florida.
2. You expressed your support of the President’s recent executive order on immigrants and refugees, but believed that it should not apply to those with green cards. What is your position on the executive order’s effect upon other special visa holders? You also called for increased vetting of refugees. Given that the current vetting process already takes on average two years, what specific changes would you propose (in addition to the Patriotism Test you described)?
3. If the Republican replacement of the Affordable Care Act only provides catastrophic insurance, which would not cover cancer screenings, vaccinations, etc., how would that not still result in possibly crushing medical debt for the consumer? Furthermore, if such replacement would also not bar preexisting conditions, what is the funding design for this plan if no individual mandate is required?
4. Federal law already prohibits federal funding going toward abortion services. How would defunding Planned Parenthood address your concerns about tax dollars supporting abortions? Furthermore, where Planned Parenthood is the primary care provider for many communities, especially low income women, how would your plan not negatively impact those women?
5. And, finally, please respond why you believe women constituents (e.g., me) are getting up in your grill when we reach out to you on issues that matter to us?
Because his constituents value quality of content over speed of delivery, he would be encouraged to take this exam home for extensive consideration before turning it in. Because his constituents appreciate appropriate citations for all factual representations, this exam would be open book. However, we do caution him that only original source material will be considered valid, as skewed, partisan-based reports are generally rejected as unverifiable.
This exam will be Pass/Fail, with a final grade to be released in November 2018.
