The U.S. congress today would seem to the common citizen to be a very democratic or representative legislative body, but the truth is that our Congress is hardly that at all. I find that to be true because the people who are democratically voted in as congress people are very rarely representative of the people who voted them into office. The socioeconomic background of Congress people differs vastly compared to the people they supposedly represent the interests of. The book describes the relationship by stating: “...It matters whether the social backgrounds of members of Congress are roughly similar to those of the people they ostensibly represent.”[1]
Another reason I find Congressional representation less than authentic is related to the business of lobbying. Lobbying is the practice of special interest groups to influence members of Congress through the promise of campaign funding, fundraising assistance for a campaign or a mutually advantageous arrangement where the lobbying group would promise to donate or fund special programs the congress person is personally vested in. Apparently people who are passionate about certain issues but lack monetary backing won’t make very good lobbyist and have a poor chance at influencing any segment of Congress. That being said, socioeconomically disadvantaged people have little to no hope for anyone lobbying Congress on their behalf or for issues that affect them. The text book goes on and quantifies the actual estimated amount spent on lobbying in the past few years “In 1998, total spending on lobbying reached $1.4billion. Ten years later, in 2008, lobbying by companies, unions and other interest groups cost $3.3billion…”[2]
Overall we can see that while Congressional decision making is very accessible to the public, the legislative process is not without inequities that are almost impossible to overcome. I wish personally that more people would find value in running for these elected offices so we would have representation that would reflect the common person. I’m not just talking about representation by so called minorities which in fact are not that anymore because of population growth over the last decade but representatives that would put some heart into what they are doing.
1 comment:
Peer Review -
The vision behind Garrett Law’s blog ‘PSC 1010’ is hard to miss – stated clearly in a mission statement that occupies a prominent place across the top of his blog. There is no ambiguity here and even a fun, apologetic teaser about his cynical approach to politics. The name of the blog, however, does not fit the overall vision.
Garrett’s content is very engaging, a great blend of information and opinion – perfect blogging material. He has a voice that shines through from the very first post – a disclaimer about his own shortcomings when discussing politics. The simplicity of the layout is refreshing – no overbearing color scheme or background image. Garrett also uses appropriate, entertaining images to enhance his content.
Garrett, A blog is a place to say something, and it is obvious from your writing that you have something to say so personalize this thing! The title of each individual post is important. Instead of using the question you are addressing as the actual title, consider a short, catchy statement that will hook your readers. Your posts are missing critical thinking questions. These are vital to engage the reader; invite them to respond to your content. On the aesthetic front, the font (at least its size) varies from post to post on your blog. It would help with the overall look as well as the reader’s enjoyment to keep the font consistent.
I love Garrett’s blog. His voice sets an engaging tone, putting his readers at ease. The layout is clean and clear, not cluttered with too many distracting extras. He clearly presents his opinions, as any good blogger would, in a thought provoking way for his readers. With a little extra personalization, Garrett will be picking up readers outside our class due to his personable tone.
Brett Eades
Post a Comment