In the super-charged, hyper-partisan environment we live in today, good (and complete) representation from our congressional leaders has been harder and harder to find.
So, is it our fault as constituents for continuing to vote in people who only tell us what we want to hear? And, are we really that gullible?
After witnessing the Trump administration’s push to revive the 1950s workforce and the representatives who support it, the hard, truthful answer to both of those previous questions is yes.
Contrary to the widely held belief among most of our current congressional leaders (and a good chunk of the people who vote for them), good representation does not simply equate to “doing what your constituents want.” The recently imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum imports is one glaring example of why good representation means avoiding what your constituents want for what your constituents truly need.
In a stunning display of bipartisanship, Democrats and Republicans alike are standing firm in their opposition to this (and other) proposed tariffs on our closest allies to avoid a potential (and imminent) trade war. As House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., stated in his weekly press briefing, even though the U.S. trade deficit needs to be addressed, we want to “make sure it’s done in a prudent way that is more surgical to limit unintended consequences.”
The Trump administration, however, is getting support from one surprising source: Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia. Perhaps his support isn’t too surprising considering the similar position he took in supporting the administration’s stance on coal. (Manchin, who represents one of the top coal-producing states, was the first Democrat to explicitly support Energy Secretary Rick Perry’s plan to subsidize coal plants.) And, regarding Manchin’s stance on both coal and steel, it would be easy to say, “Hey, he’s just putting the people of West Virginia first!”
But is he really?
Good representation used to be having tough talks with your constituents. Reasoning with your constituents. Holding town halls and putting in place a future for your constituents. But, instead, Manchin and many other representatives in other states have been conciliatory to this logic of “now” at any cost. For example, keeping coal and steel manufacturing afloat forever is not only unrealistic, but it places your constituents in a box as not being able to see five, 10 or 15 years down the road. And as a representative, it forces you into catering to your constituents every need and want despite what they really need to hear.
Throughout the 2016 presidential election, one common and enjoyable theme that Republicans (and even some Democrats) held about Donald Trump was that “He told it like it is.” But, upon further review — and, especially, in these areas benefiting from this anti-globalization, throwback economic policy — perhaps it wasn’t that voters liked that Trump “told it like it is”, but rather, they liked that he told it like they wanted to hear it. This concept has now equally spilled into our local politics.
You could argue that good representation is defending these sectors to the end of time, but I would argue that better representation is avoiding the vicious cycle of placating. The path of least resistance is to simply give in to what your constituents want to the detriment of what they need. And being a good representative means knowing the difference. And will it cost you your seat? Maybe. But if you reached one person, made that person see a brighter, realistic future, then you were a true leader.
A good representative.
—
Ryne Vyles, Salt Lake City, is a marketing specialist in the building industry and freelance writer.