Short Writing assignment 2

In former congressman Lee Hamilton’s article, “The Case for Congress,” the author argues that the negative light in which congress is often viewed is unwarranted. Hamilton agrees with another historian, quoted in the article as saying, “Congress, for all its faults, has not been the unbroken parade of clowns and thieves and posturing windbags so often portrayed. What should be spoken of more often, and more widely understood, are the great victories that have been won here, the decisions of courage and the visions achieved.” This quote seems to paraphrase Hamilton’s opinions on the issue of whether or not the American people trust congress, and whether or not they should.
It is easy to see why Hamilton holds this opinion since during his 34 years of service congress surely changed a great deal. And as Hamilton says, at the start of his service, congressmen could easily accept “lavish gifts from special interests,” or “convert their campaign contributions to personal use.” However, he says that in our present age, no such actions would be tolerated, and he argues that the majority of opinions about congressmen held by citizens are formed by misjudgment or misinformation.
While Hamilton seems to think that public perception of the campaign finance situation in the capitol to be “overstated,” he does admit that campaign finance is in need of reform. His argument is not especially urgent, and he calls the problem a “slow-motion” crisis, yet he agrees that the crisis is slowly eroding public trust and confidence in congress, which he may have implied was just as bad as the issue of the corruption itself.
However, he feels that lobbying does not present as big a problem as the media and public attention make it out to be. He makes a case both for and against lobbying, as it were. He feels that when the public is not paying attention to lobbying groups, when the special interests get congressmen behind closed doors, that’s when little lines are inserted into tax bills, or when language gets altered slightly. Yet he does not feel that lobbyists are negatively impacting our country by any means. As he said in the article, “Lobbying is a key element of the legislative process-part of the freedom of speech guaranteed under the constitution. At its heart, lobbying is simply people banding together to advance their interests, whether they’re farmers or environmentalists or bankers.”
It is essential that people trust their congressmen. Yet, as we have mentioned in class, most citizens tend to support their congressman, while decrying congress as a whole. So when taking public opinion of congress holistically, of course it will seem as though the level of trust between the people and the institution is a little low. Hamilton argues that “When people are upset about congress, their distress undermines public confidence in government and fosters cynicism and disengagement.” I would elaborate to say that this disengagement leads to more lawlessness and less voting. These two things mean that our country is becoming less like an ideal democracy, which almost everyone in our country would agree is a bad thing.

Short writing assignment #1

It's About Balance, Selectivity
According to Geoffrey Nunberg in "Thinking about the government," the roots of anti-big-government sentiment can be traced back to 1940, when republicans had recently acquired a reputation as the party of big business. Of course all powerful parties wish to remain powerful, and so the republicans picked a scapegoat to attract the attention of mainstream America. That scapegoat was “big government.”
People understandably and instinctively fear a big, meddling government; it’s big, it’s powerful, and it can control your life. What people differ on is what constitutes meddling. The republicans realized that all shades of gray here could be concentrated into a rhetoric that vilified big government, thus sending out that sympathetic signal to the freedom-loving masses, while merely washing over the specifics. Of course the republicans supported things like healthcare, public schools, roads, and the military, however the “big-government hater” exists in the vast majority of people at least to some degree. When people hear someone bashing big government, they can immediately latch on to it in their own way. This rhetoric allowed republicans mass appeal despite rhetorical and policy discrepancies.
While it was long ago when Wendell Wilkie first made a campaign platform out of belittling big government, Nunberg suggests that it was Ronald Reagan who finally perfected the role as “First Misarchist.” Reagan broadened the attack on big government, saying things like, “Government is not the solution to the problem, it is the problem,” perhaps starting a trend of the ideological slant on rhetoric.
Democrats responded by essentially adopting the same rhetoric, and fighting over the specifics of which government programs to cut behind the scenes with the republicans. According to Nunberg, democrats have adopted a “defensively anti-government approach,” one they can never truly own, or make it seem like they own. Now democrats defend their decisions in terms of marketplace terminology. People like E.J. Dionne believe this to be a mistake.
Nunberg suggests in this article that President Bush and the republicans have actually not wanted to shrink the government in the broad sense, but rather that Bush wants to reduce its role as a protector of the common people against corporations. Republicans have used language designed so that people will misinterpret Bush’s intentions and merely think he dislikes big government.
E.J. Dionne believes that instead of playing the big versus small government game with the republicans, democrats should raise the question, “Whose side is government on.” Of course Dionne realizes that this is just as much a play on words as the republicans’ game. However, this strategy brings back an understanding that our government was designed to be by, of, and for the people. As long as democrats can adhere to and articulate that message properly, they may find themselves on equal political footing with the republicans.

Jonah Goldberg, in “The Government Point,” suggests that citizens take a “more nuanced” stance on this debate over big versus small government. In other words, she opposes the concretion of all the previously mentioned shades of gray into one mass of people who hate big government. While Goldberg herself is apparently republican, she seems to be advocating here that people should not be looking at the whole picture: either big or small government, but rather that people need to look at the individual programs or policies that would combine to make either a big or small government. In other words, practicality should determine the necessary form of the government, as opposed to a specific ideological form of government limiting or necessitating practicalities.
She then argues that liberals want not only a large government, but the largest government possible, “the whole package.” Of course in doing so she is attributing frugality and common sense to the republicans, and ignorant ideology to the democrats. According to Goldberg, republicans want a government that is “big enough to fight a war and save people from drowning in downtown New Orleans...flexible, competent, innovative...nimble enough to do the things it’s supposed to do and sharp enough to recognize what it should not do.”
However, she here clarifies that this isn't the main issue. She understands that everyone wants such a government, the point she makes is that people should argue over specifics, not the broad ideologies.