IS IT NOT STRANGE TO ANYONE ELSE THAT the people leading the charge against partisanship are the very people running the parties? All this talk about political “business as usual” and “Washington insiders” — does it not seem like it’s coming from the insiders doing the business as usual? I mean, when I hear Joe Lieberman talk about the end of party politics on the very stage where Democrats are referred to as “The Angry Party,” should I assume this is his idea of post-partisanship?
And when Barack Obama takes pot shots at John McCain for having seven homes, all the while living in a $4 million Illinois residence, am I to believe this is the politics of a “Washington outsider?”
Is there another word, besides “silly,” for the behavior of these men and women who want us to believe they’re not engaging in what they’re so obviously engaging in, which is partisan politics-as-usual?
Listen: If you want non-partisanship in Washington D.C., you’re probably not going to get it. Parties are the identity badges, the “Hello, My Name Is” stickers, for politicians. They are how most people identify with a candidate and how most people decide who they’ll vote for before the campaigns even begin. Like it or not, parties are here to stay.
But, there might still be one place in Washington where people could at least have some non-partisan representation: The House of Representatives.
The House of Representatives has 435 members. It’s the same size it was in 1913, when there was about a third of our current population and still not quite 50 states. Today, there is one U.S. representative for roughly every 640,000 citizens.
That’s one single, solitary vote in Congress for California’s entire 30th District, which includes Malibu, Santa Monica, Westwood, West Hollywood, Agoura Hills, Tarzana, Woodland Hills, Beverly Hills, etc. — one single, solitary phone number for hundreds of thousands of registered voters to call if they have a question, comment or complaint (I’m still waiting to hear back about a call I placed a few days ago).
With only one representative for districts of 640,000 it doesn’t take much to realize that advertising is what wins elections: T.V. ads, radio ads, newspaper ads, billboard ads. The identity badge, the “Hello, My Name Is” sticker carries all the weight come election time. If a candidate wants to win, they have to let as many people as possible see their badge.
But what if there were more representatives? What if the U.S. House of Representatives had thousands of members instead of a paltry 435? What if there was a representative for every 64,000 people?
As a voter, you wouldn’t have to rely on advertising. You wouldn’t have to look for the identity badge.
A candidate could meet most of his constituents in a district of 64,000. Which means you could actually hear his or her voice, and see his or her facial expression, when talking (in your living room, perhaps) about things like subsidized housing, public transit, school improvements, or tax cuts. And after your representative was elected, you could actually get him or her on the phone to talk about the things you talked about during the campaign (in your living room).
Partisanship would seem “silly,” would it not, if you had that kind of relationship with your representative? If your representative came back to town and lamented all the “business as usual” in Washington, would you ask him how many homes the “insiders” owned? Would you ask him whether or not other representatives’ wives, or preachers, were the reason there wasn’t money to pave local roads?
Probably not. The Hallmark of our government is representation, and the key to representation is access to representatives. Without access, all we have is advertising, all we have are badges and stickers. You want non-partisan politics? Expand the House of Representatives.
MITCHELL JACKSON is a producer working on a documentary about immigration and a former program coordinator for Invisible Children, Inc., in Uganda. He currently lives in Santa Monica. He
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on September 12, 2008. Read the original PDF.