John Green's videos are informative and entertaining (albeit a bit nerdy) on his World History blog. This week, John weighed in the the "Fiscal Ciff" nonsense. It mainly deals with redistricting and why legislators are marginalized in the House. In 'safe districts' they are fearful of being primaried. Also think of how the 'Youdia' has led to a weakened Congressional leadership.
Sunday, January 6, 2013
The primary reason Congress sucks
John Green's videos are informative and entertaining (albeit a bit nerdy) on his World History blog. This week, John weighed in the the "Fiscal Ciff" nonsense. It mainly deals with redistricting and why legislators are marginalized in the House. In 'safe districts' they are fearful of being primaried. Also think of how the 'Youdia' has led to a weakened Congressional leadership.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Videos such as John Green's inform more people about how the American government works because they are more accessible in today's culture. This weakens Congressional leadership because most of the video makers openly oppose Congressional work and their audiences follow in their opinion. Although, I don't necessarily believe that this has made a distinct impact on Congress leadership.
The "Youdia" has definitely been informative and has weakened congressional leadership, not to mention, it has raised public awareness on how the government works.
Although we have already covered much of this information in class, the video tied it together in a very brief and informative matter. One line that will really stick with me: "so why would you compromise when compromising can cost you your job?". Although we talk so much about how dysfunctional congress is, John Green helps us see how that issue really stems from the way in which we form districts: redistricting and gerrymandering are starting to have radical effects on regional party representation and therefore, voting patterns within Congress. I guess the "youdia" in many ways leads to an increase of transparency and shallowness to a Congressman's actions: not only are House members "always campaigning" with so many media sources trained on their actions, but any vote that is dramatically out of line with their electorate party (aka, towards compromise) is immediately noticed and propagated.
So does the the increased transparency actually get in the way of good government because lawmakers are more worried about good politics?
I would have to say that the access to the Youdia has caused many politicians to be more wary of their actions. With that said it is a bit of a double-edged sword because of the fact that politics can either hinder or promote our government.
Twitter especially has allowed many users to actively voice their opinions. In situations where it's only one discontent American it is probable that the government won't take their opinions into serious consideration, but the Youdia allows their outlooks to be amplified when there's more than one person that agrees with them.
Ex:https://twitter.com/jodysherman/status/285757780252585984
Responding to Mr. Wolak's follow up question - I definitely think that sometimes it does. When lawmakers are so tied to constituents' beliefs (which aren't always logical or practical), they aren't able to make the decisions that are best for the country - they just make the decisions best for getting re-elected. It's a really tough line to draw especially since our government is based in democratic principles... but I think that increased transparency definitely gets in the way of good government (though it does help sometimes). I don't think that the increased transparency would be as much of a problem if lawmakers had a set one-time term... but since we have career lawmakers, it definitely adds some obstacles.
I think we all pretty much agree that Congress seems to be maddeningly inefficient at doing everything (except for naming buildings after war heroes apparently?)... it's just become so much of a game of reputation and re-election that good politics and compromise has been set aside. Youdia can be a good thing in the sense that it brings a more direct connection between congresspeople and voters/constituents and also holds politicians more accountable in the public eye, but the increased transparency it brings with it makes things less politics-focused too, I think. Politicians end up being more worried about reputation because their actions (both personal and political) are so visible, they don't necessarily end up voting in a way that is more beneficial or sensible, instead voting in a way that they know will bring them favor in the public eye, whether or not it's really the smarter way to go.
I also think the increased transparency gets in the way of good lawmaking because it only adds to the election-based mindset that all American politicians have become stuck in. The issue of multiple term politicians comes up every so often right around election season because incumbents end up spending more time, effort, and money on being reelected than they ever did actually doing their job, but the issue disappears as quickly as the losers' access to the media. Videos like this are productive in that they bring light to the disturbing role the media plays in forcing politicians to play the publicity card rather than being good lawmakers and leaders.
Post a Comment