If a Representative votes Yes when his constituents overwhelmingly want him to vote No, is he fulfilling his job as a Representative? Or do we allow our representatives to vote their conscience, trusting that they have our best interests at heart? And if they vote their consciences, how do you tell if they really are doing so from the goodness of their hearts, or whether there are other forces at play in their decision-making process? What exactly does it mean to be a "Representative" in the House of Representatives during the economic crisis?
Wally Herger's "yes" vote on the first version of the bailout bill got me pondering these issues. Follow me across the fold and help me figure this one out ...
Wally, a Republican, is the long-time "Representative" for CA-02. I put the word in quotes because Herger has a well-established record of voting against the best interests of his constituents and in lock-step with Republican leadership -- come hell or high water, no matter how bad the results are for his district, he votes the way he is told. Which makes it really difficult to believe the "vote of conscience" argument he has been making this week.
Herger voted Yes to Monday's version of the $700 billion bailout bill. He claimed that it was a tough vote:
Although Herger said that his constituency was overwhelmingly against bailing out Wall Street, he decided to support the measure to try to help prevent a feared widespread financial collapse, which would certainly have dire consequences for north state residents.
So his constituents were against it, but he voted for it. Now, if it were anyone but Wally, I'd give the guy the benefit of the doubt. This whole situation is incredibly complicated. It's doubtful that anyone voting either for or against the bailout really understood what the full ramifications would be for the economy if the bill passed or failed. If the economists are disagreeing, then how is your ordinary run-of-the-mill Representative supposed to be omniscient about this mess?
Perfectly reasonable people could disagree on the best course of action here. And well-meaning representatives might believe that they have access to better information than their constituents do, and they could vote in good conscience against the screaming hordes telling them to vote the other way. It could happen. (See, for example, those who voted against the Iraq War when their constituents were clamoring for blood.)
But you know what? I don't buy the "vote of conscience" argument when it comes to Wally -- not because I think representatives shouldn't vote their conscience, but because he's never given me reason to trust him before. The mere fact that he called a press call to "explain" his vote makes me think that he knew he was going to hear from his constituents, and that political motives, not the well-being of his constituency, were front and center on his mind. And, yes indeed, he heard from the people.
"Phone calls, e-mails, faxes - all of the above," said Dave Meurer, the congressman's Redding field office representative.
And by a 2-to-1 margin, the hundreds who dialed in were doing so to voice their displeasure, he said.
When reached by phone in Washington, D.C., Tuesday night, Herger acknowledged that many of his constituents "were madder than hell" at him.
Meanwhile, Jeff Morris, who is running to unseat Herger in November, followed his conscience down a different path.
Morris said he wouldn't have voted for the bailout.
He said Herger, one of 65 House Republicans to do so, was casting the vote to stave off a crisis he helped create.
Herger voted in support of bills that deregulated the banking and mortgage industries, leading to the crash in the lending sector, Morris said.
"So it's no surprise he would be jumping on board to support the financial markets," Morris said.
He also disagreed with his fellow Democrats who supported the bailout plan, calling their vote a "shoot-from-the-hip" reaction to a crisis that can't be fixed in just a few days.
Their plan "put too much of the authority right back in the hands of the people causing the problem," he said.
Okay, so we've got a self-proclaimed fiscal conservative voting for a huge government bailout and against the will of his constituents versus a Democratic challenger who says he would have voted with the constituents even if it meant bucking the will of his party.
My question to you is, who do you trust to be your Representative? The fellow who has always voted the party line and claims to have suddenly gained a conscience, or the fellow who, in his role as a county supervisor, has a clear history of listening to his constituents and is willing to vote as an independent to do so?
I certainly don't have the answer to the economic crisis. I don't know for sure whether Wally is feeding us another line of bull or whether he actually believes what he is saying for once. I would have lined up with my brother Jeff on this one, simply because I don't trust the Bush administration when they tell us we have to hurry up and vote.
Final question: If a representative casts an unpopular vote that is truly a vote of conscience, are they still representing us? Yes, I think it's possible. The problem for the voters lies in determining whether or not their representative actually has a conscience or whether conscience is simply camouflaging conformance. In most cases, past history is all we have to go on -- and an examination of the representative's voting record is a good place to start.