Why did it happen? The House of Representatives rejected the strong pleas of both Republican and Democratic leadership and voted “No” on emergency legislation described as crucial to the nation’s well being. Why?
We call the U.S. House the “People’s House.” The design of the Constitution created many more members of the House, compared to the Senate, and required direct election of members of the House at short intervals, every two years.
The House is the legislative branch that is suppose to be closest to the people. But gerrymandering has defeated the Constitution’s design, and now 90% of members of the House are in Districts considered “safe.” These “safe” Districts are both Republican and Democratic and members of these Districts usually can count on easily winning by margins of 65% or better. Members of these gerrymandered Districts seldom have serious competition from the opposing party and, therefore, tend to cater to the “base,” the most partisan element of their party. They are much more ideological in their thinking and much more partisan in their actions, than if they were required to answer to a more evenly balanced electorate.
The bail out legislation offended both the Right and the Left. Conservative constituencies demanded their representatives vote “No,” echoing talk radio, Lou Dobbs, etc. Liberal constituencies also demanded a “No” vote, saying that more help be given to “Main Street,” rather than so much help to “Wall Street.”
The 95 Democrats voting “No,” I’m sure, were mostly considered “Liberals,” while the 133 Republicans voting “No,” were mostly “Conservatives.” In Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinich voted “No,” and Republican Mike Turner also voted “No.” Kucinich will defend his “No” vote based on Liberal principles, and Turner will defend his “No” based on his Conservative principles. And in their gerrymandered districts, probably neither Representative in the “People’s House” will need to really account for their vote in any in-depth way.
Kucinich and Turner found agreement to vote “No” by putting ideology above practicality. And in the wake of their vote, over $1.2 Trillion of wealth of stock market value vaporized.
The “People’s House,” should be all about making hard choices for the people’s good. The fact that Kucinich and Turner agreed in voting “No” is disturbing. Their unanimity demonstrates the triumph of ideology and partisanship over sound reasoning. It demonstrates the bankrupt state of our democracy.
