People are sick of being thought of as faraway annoyances who only get whatever policy scraps are left over after pols have finished servicing the donors they hang out with at Redskins games.
Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone: Democrats Will Learn All the Wrong Lessons From Brush With Bernie
Taibbi’s analysis is that what has corrupted the constituent-representative communications is the pummelling of staff accomplished through massive astroturfing.
“Have you ever called your congressman? No, because you have a job!” laughs Paul Thacker, a former Senate aide currently working on a book about life on the Hill. Thacker recounts tales of staffers rushing to turn on Fox News once the phones start ringing, because “the people” are usually only triggered to call Washington by some moronic TV news scare campaign.
In another case, Thacker remembers being in the office of the senator of a far-Northern state, watching an aide impatiently conduct half of a constituent phone call. “He was like, ‘Uh huh, yes, I understand.’ Then he’d pause and say, ‘Yes, sir,’ again. This went on for like five minutes,” recounts Thacker.
Finally, the aide firmly hung up the phone, reared back and pointed accusingly at the receiver. “And you are from fucking Missouri!” he shouted. “Why are you calling me?”
These stories are funny, but they also point to a problem. Since The People is an annoying beast, young pols quickly learn to be focused entirely on each other and on their careers. They get turned on by the narrative of Beltway politics as a cool power game, and before long are way too often reaching for Game of Thrones metaphors to describe their jobs. Eventually, the only action that matters is inside the palace.
And the problem is that there are some structural reasons that constituents in trying to be heard in Washington DC come off sounding a little bit nuts.
Take the Missouri story, for example. Why would a constituent think to call a “far northern” representative when they are from Missouri? The simplest reason is that feeling shut out by the partisanship in DC and seeing a representative who might be favorable and provide an ear to what they were saying, they called someone who might possibly listen to the details of what they had to say. Members of Congress (both houses) might represent a particular jurisdiction, but they pass legislation of consequence to the entire country. An imperious representative might be so ideologically blinded as to not represent their own district and so gerrymandered as to not be able to be removed. This is a peculiar form of “crashing the gates”.
Ironically, reforming non-profits trying to apply pressure by creating their own astroturf campaigns contribute to the problem and the cynicism by increasing the load “sound alike” callers.
And just how cynical has the Village become?
Years ago, over many beers in a D.C. bar, a congressional aide colorfully described the House of Representatives, where he worked.
It’s “435 heads up 435 asses,” he said.
Cynicism seems to be a perpetual condition in DC.
Just who the f*ck would a Texas progressive call? Charlie Gonzales is gone… Lloyd Doggett is the last man standing and even he did not endorse Sanders.
A journeyman effort by Matt on this. Perfectly fine, but not anywhere near his standard. Not easy to shake off the depressing road ahead for us.
I have Brett Guthrie, Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell, any wonder why I don’t dial DC?
I meant to give this rating a “4”. Finger slipped.
Maybe that far Northern guy was a bill sponsor or a committee or sub-committee aide or just sat on a particular committee. The aide was the asshole.
Often those non-profit groups say “call so and so and tell him/her”.
First sentence chairman not aide.
The critical point is that legislators are working without a clear understanding of what actual constituents are thinking, lobbying has so overloaded aides with astroturf calls that they have become cynical and shut out all callers. The result is poor legislation, angry constituents, and legislators who gerrymander to pick their constituents instead of constituents picking their legislators.
And that creates games and gridlock. And increasingly angry constituents.
And a crisis of polity that will become very violent if it is not fixed.
So which party wants to make it worse in order to force retrograde change, and which party is complacent?
I called Sen. Mark Kirk’s office requesting he support a hearing for Judge Merrick Garland. I had to leave a message and have never received an answer.
“This inability to grasp that the problem is bigger than Bernie Sanders is a huge red flag. As Thacker puts it, the theme of this election year was widespread anger toward both parties, and both the Trump craziness and the near-miss with Sanders should have served as a warning. “The Democrats should be worried they’re next,” he says.
It doesn’t sound like these Democratic congressmen and staffers are remembering their Political Science 101. Otherwise, they would know that political parties do not operate in a vacuum. What happened to the Republicans is headed right for the Democrats. It’s difficult to defy political theory that is supported by evidence.
The illusion that when you have money, you don’t need people. The illusion that voters are insignificant with insignificant views of issues and insignificant ideas to contribute to the resolution of those issues.
The current symbol is the Democratic National Convention platform committee and the possibility of getting out a Medicare for All plank despite its general popularity. One of the co-chairs is hardwiring the Cigna-Anthem merger of private insurance and for-profit Blue Cross-Blue Shield. Likely Cigna wants to understand the business model that the Affordable Care Act subsidizes. Expect to be deductibled and co-payed to death–in some cases, literally.
“Expect to be deductibled and co-payed to death–in some cases, literally.”
The future of healthcare in the hands of neolibs.
I read that single payer was already a goner.
For 2017, average premium increases for the lowest-cost silver plans and the 2nd lowest-cost silver plans are 11% and 10%, respectively. Portland, OR will see an average increase of 26% and D.C. an average 21% increase. (This is a preliminary analysis.) For 2016, the average increase for these 2 plans was 5%. With all the insurance mergers and United Health Care pulling out, I wonder what effect that will have in the future?
From the Kaiser report:
“Marketplace premiums under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), already a subject of perennial interest, have gained even more attention amid unfavorable financial results from some insurers, as well as initial reports of steep premium increases requested for 2017. Several factors will influence how premiums will change in 2017, and there is reason to believe that increases will be higher than in recent years.”
http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/analysis-of-2017-premium-changes-and-insurer-participation-
in-the-affordable-care-acts-health-insurance-marketplaces/
Teaser rates. The pro-ACA folks totally refused to listen to anyone that pointed out the financial fallacies they were believing. That more insured people would not bend the cost curve (and they were good reasons to suspect that aggregate costs would increase) and premiums would continue to increase (not all of them and not all at once), that the percentage cap for insurers operating expenses didn’t mean more dollars for medical costs, and that deductibles and co-pays were still more than many people could afford.