1
1
Question: if 2,480 of 2,500 constituents in Washington’s
2nd District say “No” or “Hell, no!” (that’s 99.92%) and
barely 1% (.008 percent) say “Yes,” to a $700 billion
bail-out bill, yet their Congressman votes for it anyway,
why do our civics texts still describe this nation as a
representative democracy?
My Representative [sic] in Congress is Rick Larsen (WA-02). Rick calls himself a Democrat, although often he votes otherwise. Rick’s flippant comment to a Mt. Vernon, WA audience not long ago highlighted the critical issue in our democracy today: Who, in the United States, works for whom?
Rick was home in the 2nd District, campaigning and trying to explain his feckless vote for a no-strings-attached $700 billion donation to the investment bankers who caused the sub-prime crisis. Speaking to the Skagit Round Table, a local economic development association, Rick reported that his staff “has received 2,500 e-mails and phone calls from constituents in the 2nd Congressional District. The majority of them opposed the proposed $700 billion economic recovery package that failed in the House Sept. 29.” (goSkagit.com, 10/08/08)
Rick joked: “Fifty percent of those constituents said ‘No’ and the other fifty percent said ‘Hell, no’ to the proposal.” His office, he admitted, received only about 20 comments supporting the proposed recovery package, which he nonetheless helped pass with his F**k-you-and-the horse-you-rode-in-on “Yes” vote (goSkagit.com, 10/08/08). Rick later re-affirmed the facts of that story to the Skagit Valley Herald reporter.
A nice lady in one of Rick’s offices volunteered that Rick’s Congressional colleagues around the country had reported similar overwhelming constituent resistance to the buy-off, yet they, too, defiantly voted in favor of multi-billion dollar blank checks, heavily redacted contracts, and arbitrary determinations by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, himself one of the chief culprits of the securitized mortgage scam.
Who, In Reality, Works for Whom?
In private industry, as in not-for-profits, supervisor and subordinate rôles are generally well-understood. Consequently, it is usually clear who works for whom. And when a directive is issued by a supervisor, president, or other boss, subordinates know that failure to comply could lead to disciplinary action or termination.
In employment law a failure to follow a supervisor’s direct order (in the absence of a compelling legal or life-safety issue) is termed “insubordination,” and is considered “just cause” for termination. What term shall we apply, then, to the insubordinate failure by so many of our Congressional representatives to follow what amounted to a direct and unmistakable order from so many of their constituents?
If my puppy-brained congressional representative on a two-year leash can be so cavalier about his irresponsible vote for a poorly-structured bail-out that will directly cost every American $2,200, yet provide (as we have seen in the subsequent stock market and mortgage foreclosure chaos) little or no protection to middle-class citizen-voters how, then, should thoughtful constituents remind their legislators of their solemn duty to REPRESENT their constituents?
Certainly we could, and should, at the next opportunity vote against the Rick Larsens and their fellow “representatives” who act irresponsibly, first by their failure to insist on firm bail-out guidelines and, second, by their willingness to be bullied into voting for nonsense legislation in order to say they have done something.
Broader Questions about Who, in the United States, works for whom?
