The Party Line

Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Texas)

Rep. Chet Edwards, a Texas Democrat who remains a firm “no,” said he’s getting calls spurred by Organizing for America, the president’s unofficial outreach arm. He said he’s fine with constituents expressing their opinions — and even with the right of OFA to engage — but noted of the Obama organization, “It’s clear to me they could care less about my political future.”

This is absolutely true. I wonder though, does Mr. Edwards think it should be any other way? Politicians should care about their political future, and constitutional designers should try to harness their likely concern with their continued lucrative employment in pursuit of broader political and social objectives. This was one of the key insights of the Federalist Papers after all (#54):

Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

But by the same logic voters should absolutely be instrumental in their concern for the careers of politicians: they should avoid the sort of sentimentality that congressmen frequently try to instill, and they should be concerned with the career prospects of a politician only if this is related in some tangible way to the success of their preferred policies. If Chet Edwards is willing to see the one consistent and dominant priority of the Democratic party go down in flames, at a time when passage is so close and failure is almost certainly going to lead to the return to power of an emboldened right wing, then absolutely Democrats shouldn't give a damn about his political future.

He doesn't even need to be the most reliable vote for him to be worth the Democrats' while: he can vote against them on all but the big bills and still be worth more than a Republican in that seat. But if he won't vote when it counts, then I see little value added from having a Democrat rather than a Republican in that seat.

This though raises the broader question: isn't toeing the party line an undesirable quality in a representative? in some cases absolutely. And if Chet Edwards really believes that this bill violates his conscience or the broad interests of his constituents, then he should absolutely vote against it. But then he should stand on that principle, rather than whine about how Democrats don't care about his political future.

More broadly, however, the aggregation of distinct district preferences in such a large and homogeneous country will always be highly problematic and unstable unless it is embedded within a larger institutional framework, such as a party system. It might not be ideal, we might want more parties or some other arrangement altogether, but given that we have chosen a two-party system (both by votes and by the various legal impediments to additional parties) to structure the aggregation of preferences, I don't have too much of a problem with requiring party members to stand up and be counted for the major policies advanced by the party. When they don't, they should get ready for the party backlash. Because at least some measure of party discipline is necessary in order to get anything done.*

* I think that there is an important difference between taking a position based on principle and based on short term calculations of electoral expediency. I think that having a robust and diverse body of principled legislators is an important thing, one that has all sorts of positive externalities on governance and policymaking. These positive benefits largely outweigh the negative, namely, the need to corral a bunch of self-interested bunnies. So I would be less willing to challenge principled opponents of a major party objective, as it is likely that their presence in the congressional delegation would enhance governance. But complaints of political blowback leave me absolutely unfazed. They want to keep their jobs, and so are willing to go against my policy preferences. I should be equally instrumental in seeing that they lose their jobs, or at least fear for their jobs, in order to achieve my policy preferences.