Democrats didn't lose the battle of 2010. They won it.

I was intrigued by the article in Slate magazine last Friday because of its title, shown in the title of this post. It seems counterintuitive to all who watched the Congressional elections last week; the Republicans recaptured the majority in the House, a major obstacle to the Democrats' future plans. Despite this, the article musters a little hope for the disheartened Democrats.

It's funny, in a twisted way, to read all the post-election complaints that Democrats lost because they thought only of themselves...That's too bad, because Obama, Pelosi, and their congressional allies proved just the opposite. They risked their jobs—and in many cases lost them—to pass the health care bill. The elections were a painful defeat, and you can argue that the bill was misguided. But Democrats didn't lose the most important battle of 2010. They won it.

The health care bill was violently disputed while it worked its way through the Senate; it was obvious that no one was completely happy with the bill. A rational Congressmen interested in re-election would have avoided dealing with such a hot issue, especially with such negativity surrounding it. It's what Tom Perriello should have done; if what was said in class was true, he should have heeded his constituency and voted against the bill. Nevertheless, he and Democrats like him did vote for it and consequently lost their bids for re-election, even with strong Party support.

Is this proof that ideology is important in legislative decisions, as Kau and Rubin insist? Were the Congressmen inspired by the knowledge that they would change history, despite the risks? The article is strongly implying "yes" to both questions. Perhaps there is something more to modern politics than continually planning for the next election, continually seeking self-preservation, something that encompasses more than a few years or even a few decades.

A Painfully Funny Look at Representation in the US

A satirical article in the Onion [the site is slightly NSFW] mocks the representative democracy that has come to define the US. Here, the American people apparently have hired a high-powered lobbyist to "help advance their agenda in Congress." Tired of being a "low-priority fringe group," all 310 million Americans have decided to take the big business route to make themselves heard. The article is saturated with irony, making the reader take a good look at how the average citizen's interests have been pushed aside for private ones. Irony aside, some quotes hit too close to home like,

"The goal is to make it seem political advantageous for legislators to keep the American people in mind when making laws," Weldon said. "Lawmakers are going to ask me, 'Why should I care about the American people? What's in it for me?'"

Therein lies the value of satire: constructive social criticism. What is in it for lawmakers to help the average citizen, who does not have the influence or resources of a large corporation? Re-election? Not necessarily. Virtue? Maybe, but Stigler points out, "Unfortunately virtue does not always command so high a price." In a government where we find that money often equals votes, hiring a lobbyist for special interest group "American citizenry" is not as far-fetched as it sounds; looking at how much clout industrial giants and special interest groups hold, it might even be the rational choice. In the article, they're paying the lobbyist $795 an hour; if that were the only cost of organizing, then the latent group could awaken as well. If elected representatives are placing their constituents' concerns last anyway, what's the point of voting?

I think that, given the article's suggested direction that America is heading toward, there are also a lot of implications that need examining. It's no secret that special interest groups are influential, but do they have the potential to uproot our democracy? Does everyone need to be in a special interest group to be counted? How is this new representative system changing the US?