Congress and the Public
Introduction
The members of the public have over the years been tasked with the mandate of electing their leaders to represent them in the Congress. While voting, the voters tend to believe they are making the right choice. They believe the candidate they vote for will represent their needs while in the congress. However, this tends to change, after the elected members get to the Congress. They tend to forget the promises they made during the political campaigns, hence not delivering. In this case, the members of the public lose trust in politicians owing to the fact that they cannot stick to their word. Similarly, they also feel unappreciated, and thus losing interest when it comes to voting, a move which consequently leads to a low voter turnout during the elections. For that reason, this paper will discuss the extent Bartels argues that the link between the members of the Congress and the public on matters of income inequality, and also include other authors in addressing whether the members of the public are sufficiently represented by the members of the Congress.
According to Bartels, all members of the public should be treated equally regardless of their level of education or class in life (Bartels, 2002). Nonetheless, this is not the issue in the US, owing to the fact that the wealthier, and well educated are given the first priority by the members of the Congress. This is in relation to the support that they may offer the members of the Congress when it comes election. The poor and less educated citizens are less likely to participate in voting, a move which basically makes them less important to the members of the Congress. In addition, the members of the Congress are concerned with people who will be of help to them, hence being able to win the elections. While the representation of the members of the public is supposed to equal according to the dictates of the constitution, the poor are side-lined, and the distribution of services is not affair at all.
The members of the Congress believe wealthier as well better educated citizens are well formulated and well informed, hence they are more likely to turn out to vote. This consequently means that the wealthier are also more likely to have direct contact with public officials, thus they have chances of contributing more money and energy to aid in political campaigns (Jones & McDermott, 2010). Due to the privileges that the politicians are likely to enjoy from the affluent in the society, it becomes necessary for politicians to give them the first priority when it comes to the distribution of resources (Bartels, 2000). Politicians are majorly concerns with those who will be of help to them, thus they will only adhere to the needs of the rich while forget about the poor constituents who must be represented as well. This is basically the reason as to why areas with huge numbers of the poor tend to lag behind in terms of development as compared to areas surrounded by the rich.
On the other hand, income distribution in the US has also changed over the past two decades, with considerable gains in real income among those at the higher level outstripping much more diffident gains in the middle as well as the lower classes (Jones & McDermott, 2010). The increase in salaries has also taken the same pattern as the distribution of resources, whereby the upper class gets high salary increments as compared to the middle and lower classes. These disparities are also based on the notion that the upper who are also the rich will be of help to the political class, and thus increasing their salaries betters the chances of the upper financing politicians in their political campaigns. For instance, the average real income for the richest one-fifth of families in the US increased by more than $50,000, which is more than 50%, between the periods of 1980 and 2000 (Bartels, 2002). Likewise, the normal real income of the poorest one-fifth rose by less than $1,000 which is about six percent. The salary increment levels have led to lower voter turnout among the middle and low class level citizens since 1960. This has been attributed to the income disparities as well as unequal representations of all citizens in the country. Even though this is a critical issue, the members of the Congress do not view it as a serious issue since the rich are not complaining, and they also turnout when it comes to voting. Regardless of whether the common citizens enjoy or do not enjoy the distribution of resource, the members of the Congress are only focused on achieving their own goals, and not on improving the livelihoods of the poor within the society. The poor do not consequently have a choice but to accept life as it is since the elected leaders do not seem concerned with their interests as they do not add anything to the table when it comes to political campaigns and the future of politicians.
Correspondingly, Berelson et al, also argues that the Democratic Party makes decisions based on the interest groups which tend to aid the party in winning the senatorial seats (Berelson et al, 1995). Moreover, the distribution of services is based on the groups which are able to not only aid the party in getting huge number of elected members of the Congress, but also those who may help in seeing the party being capable to win the presidential election. In this case, there is none other class than the rich, since they are the well-educated, hence they are more likely to make decisions which will see the future of the party being brighter (Jones & McDermott, 2010). The Democrats were not focused on the general delivery of services to the public, but on the provision of services to those who were of importance to the party’s wellbeing. This is basically the upper class citizens who understand the functions of the government, and who are most likely to affect the party if they shift their allegiance or political affiliations. Nevertheless, the members of public who fall under middle and lower classes were more probable to shift allegiance from the party since it is only concerned with the rich in the society and does not in any way support the poor.
Likewise, Popkin also argues in a similar manner, whereby he states that voters tend use demographic facts which include race, gender, ethnicity, religion, and social origins in order to make elect their leaders (Jackson, 2015). This is simply a shortcut, since they do not get to understand the traits of the leader they are electing, and the interests of the leader. In so doing, they are more vulnerable to misrepresentation in the Congress, for the reason that they elected the wrong candidate. On the other hand, during the political campaigns, politicians use all means to bond with the lower class as a means of showing them how they are concerned with their affairs. For instance, a politician can visit a Mexican restaurant and eat tacos as a means of bonding with the voters of a Mexican decent in the region. In so doing, the voters in the region tend to view the candidate as the perfect choice, forget about the interests of the candidate.
It is because of being misinformed and the lack of knowledge in making the perfect choices that makes the poor to suffer in the society. While at the same time the rich tend to enjoy the privileges which all members of the public are supposed to enjoy (Jones & McDermott, 2010). Immediately after the elections, the senators disappear from sight, and instead focus on ways of supporting and meeting the demands of the rich within the society. This happens while the poor continue suffering, since they are misrepresented by the leaders they elected. The rich on the contrary, make decisions based on the leaders who are more likely to support their interests (Jackson, 2015). Thus they may finance political leaders who will meet their demands hence politicians are majorly focused with these groups of people, because they understand what they want, and will not elect a person based on demographic factors. The rich only focus on the attributes of the candidate, before making a move, it is for this reason that they are prevalent to high salary increments and development.
The level of Bartels responsiveness is appropriate in the sense that the wealthy are more focused on the results they will get from the people they elect as opposed to the poor. The poor are not majorly focused on the results, but on the candidate, since they only focus on the political attributes of the candidate, a factor which makes them to wrong decisions when it comes to voting. In order to ensure equal representation of all the members of the public, the members of the Congress should focus on providing services to both the reach and the poor, through proper allocation of resources the rich and poor without favoring any sides. In addition, their focus should not only be on those who support them, but also on the representation of the members of the public regardless of their social classes. In so doing, the poor will see the need of voting a move which will positively impact voter turnout rates in the country, hence increasing the chances of better performing leaders being re-elected without having to rely on funding from the rich.
Conclusion
The political class just as discussed in the paper, is majorly concerned with the rich, owing to the fact that they are well informed and well educated. These attributes allows them to make critical decisions on the political leader they may want. In addition, they are also likely to support the politicians through funding political campaigns, the members of the senate tend to address their grievances once they get to the office. On the other hand, the poor who misinformed and less educated tend to elect leaders based on demographic factors, a reason which makes elected leaders not to rely on them when it comes to voting.
Reference
Jackson, J. S. (2015). The American political party system: Continuity and change over ten presidential elections.
Bartels, M. L. (2002). Economic Inequality and Political Representation: Department of Politics and Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University.
Bartels, L. (2000). Partisanship and Voting Behavior, 1952-1996. American Journal of Political Science, 44(1), 35-50. doi:10.2307/2669291
Berelson, P. F., Lazarsfeld, and William N. M. (1995). Voting: A Study Of Opinion Formation In A Presidential Campaign: University of Chicago Press.
Jones, D. R., & McDermott, M. L. (2010). Americans, Congress, and democratic responsiveness: Public evaluations of Congress and electoral consequences. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Greer, J. M., Moberg, D. O., & Lynn, M. L. (1996). Research in the social scientific study of religion. Greenwich, Conn: Jai.
