Here’s a poll I’d like to see.
Would you prefer a Congressperson that is a career politician or one that has never held elective office?
The answer to that question probably changes a lot from election cycle to election cycle. In the aftermath of 9/11, for example, people were probably more inclined to go for experience over an unknown quantity. But, this is not so in every election cycle. In 1994, for example, the country elected 37 Republican congresspeople that had never previously held elective office. The people just wanted to kick the bums out. As Nathan Gonzales points out, 2006 might be that kind of year.
Perhaps the starkest contrast in credentials can be seen in three GOP open seats in the Midwest — in Minnesota’s 6th, Illinois’ 6th and Wisconsin’s 8th, where the three GOP nominees, Michele Bachmann, Peter Roskam and John Gard, are state legislators, while the Democrats in the three contests, Patty Wetterling, Tammy Duckworth and Steve Kagen, never have held elective office.
But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. In California’s 4th, Charlie Brown (D) is a 26-year veteran of the Air Force who served on the professional staff of the Roseville Police Department. His “elective” experience, according to his Web site, is limited to service chairing the “Supervisory Committee” of a credit union.
In California’s 11th district, Democrat Jerry McNerney has been an engineer and energy consultant and is now CEO of a start-up company that manufactures wind turbines. In Washington’s 8th district, Democratic nominee Darcy Burner was a former manager at Microsoft.
Heath Shuler (D) in North Carolina’s 11th is a former football player and a real estate agent. Democrat Joe Donnelly, in Indiana’s 2nd district, is an attorney and businessman who lost bids for the state Senate and for Congress; he never has held elective office. The same goes for businessman Jack Davis, the Democrat who’s taking on GOP Rep. Tom Reynolds in New York’s 26th district.
And I’m not done yet. Democrats Ellen Simon (Arizona’s 1st), Charlie Stuart (Florida’s 8th), Christine Jennings (Florida’s 13th), Tim Walz (Minnesota’s 1st), Victoria Wulsin (Ohio’s 2nd), Lois Murphy (Pennsylvania’s 6th), Joe Sestak (Pennsylvania’s 7th), Patrick Murphy (Pennsylvania’s 8th) and Chris Carney (Pennsylvania’s 10th) also never have held elective office. There are others, but you get the drift.
The Dems have recruited a mix of schoolteachers, war and intelligence veterans, small businesspeople, upper management types, minor celebrities, and (naturally) attorneys, rather than just looking to hottest assemblyman or woman. The results should be interesting.
Even for a veteran politician, it must be somewhat bewildering to come to Washington DC and enter into Congress. But for someone that has never sat in a legislative body? It must be overwhelming. Each of these newly elected neophytes will be looking for mentors to show them everything from how the rules work to where the gym and cafeteria are to where to rent or buy lodging.
And that is where the dynamic of the House power structure comes into play. War and intelligence veterans like Patrick Murphy (PA-08), Chris Carney (PA-10), and Joe Sestak (PA-07) will probably gravitate towards John Murtha (PA-12) as he challenges Steny Hoyer for majority whip. Meanwhile, progressives like Jerry McNerney (CA-11) and Patty Wetterling (MN-06) will probably rally around the speaker. Other loci of power revolve around the committee chairs. Where will all these newbies get assigned and how will that effect their job development? If your mentor is Charlie Rangel, John Conyers, Henry Waxman, or George Miller you are going to have a different outlook and experience than if your mentor is Ike Skelton, John Spratt, or Collin Peterson.
There is one other avenue for shaping the next Congress, and that is solidarity among the freshmen themselves. This happened in 1974 and again, especially, in 1994. In both of those historical precedents, the freshmen class was significantly more radical than the rest of their caucus and much more reform-minded. I don’t see this incoming class of Democrats are particularly radical on the policy front. But they are significantly more confrontational and aggressive on the style-front. They are the children of Bushism, and they are not shy about waging war on Bush’s style of governance. They are shrill, acerbic, and vituperative.
A lot will depend on how well we do in the border states and the mountain west. A lot depends on whether we can take the Senate as well. As long as the Republicans hold the Senate they will be able to use it to endanger a lot of Democrats that won narrowly in traditionally Republican seats. But, without the Senate, the Dems can control the Congressional agenda and avoid troublesome votes.
It should be interesting. I have to say that I like the idea of a Congress with a lot of non-politicians in it. They’ll make mistakes, but they’ll also be more candid and more independent. That would be refreshing.
Since it is the “People’s House” and not the “Politicians’ House,” I see no reason why reasonably intelligent, reasonably competent people with integrity should make really swell representatives. Previous elected office is a two-edged sword in my opinion. More legislative experience combined with entrenched political behavior.
where my head was going when I was pondering BooMan’s question. Of the people, by the people, for the people.
At the moment, we can substitute profit and I feel it’s due to entrenched incumbents who would rather take advice from their lobbyists who wine and dine them at a bistro in Georgetown instead of constituents at a town hall meeting. Sigh…we have to get the money out of the system.
That would be an easy poll for me to answer; I’ll take the inexperience of the newbie over the corrupt career politician any day.
In general I like newbies, they aren’t afraid of change. And I’m strongly in favor of the type of campaign finance reform that would do away with the financial advantage that incumbents have in races.
But I’m generally against term limit legislation because I’ve seen how term limits have been a disaster in the Missouri legislature. They’ve given lobbyists trememdous power. The lobbyists are the only ones with any institutional memory who know how to get things done. There are no mentors for the newbies among other elected officials — everybody is more or less always a newbie. So the lobbyists become the mentors. It’s not a system I would recommend anyone adopt.
The Michigan legislature has term limits as well. IMO it has been a disaster for my state. All the Republican (I know Michigan is viewed as a blue state by others, but you need to know our legislature is dominated by the GOP in both houses. One reason why Jennifer Granholm has her hands full.) legislators seem to be pubescent, adolescent,spoiled kids who are looking for someone to tell them what to do. As you point out, the lobbyists are only too happy to oblige.
A tier of senior representatives who have served their first term to show the neophytes around, give them advice on how to get bills passed, let them know which staffers really run the place, and so forth.
Then, when their term is up, <whistlesound /> — they’re out of there. Two term limit.
Or, here’s another idea that’s too intelligent to be implementable. Have Congressional terms be like jury duty. Every six months they select a few names from the voter rolls. You serve your six months and <whistlesound /> — you’re on the plane back from DC. That way Congress would be the people. You might get the homeless guy who sells flowers on the corner over by Macy’s. You might get a physics professor from MIT. You might get Tom Cruise.
Actually that last possibility makes this entire plan too dangerous to implement, so forget it.
One should not jump to the conclusion that every single without exception incumbent is corrupt. Or that every neophyte understands what Congress does or is incorruptible.
That said, the current Congressional incumbents are well past their sell-by date.
But I would be very pleased for John Conyers to mentor newbies on the Judiciary Committee. Or for Robert Byrd to educate new Senators about the traditions of the Senate (not to mention the arcane rules).