My good friend over at The Cranky Conservative made the following statement yesterday afternoon in the midst of a much larger post about the late Senator Kennedy and others:
The idea that someone would be a member of Congress for such extended periods of time would have flabbergasted the Framers.
I’m wondering if he’s actually correct. Is it the length of public service that would have flabbergasted the Framers, or is it the exclusivity? In other words, when one looks at many of our Members of Congress we see terms of 30+ years, but we also see many who have never really had any other career or occupation other than being a Member of Congress. Vice President Biden is a good example, elected to the Senate at age 29 (he didn’t take office until after his 30th birthday so it’s all constitutional), he served exclusively in that capacity until being elected VP last year. I don’t know what he did before that, except go to law school. Now, personally I didn’t graduate law school until I was 25, which wouldn’t leave much time for an alternate career. But back to the point. I don’ t think it’s the length of service that would upset the Framers as much as the idea the one can make a life time career out of being a Member of Congress.
The notion of being a public servant wasn’t antithetical to the Framers. In fact, many of them were career public servants, Madison, Mason, Randolph, Rutledge, Marshall, Jay, Hamilton, all spent most of their professional lives in public service, serving at the various levels of government and in various positions. Government, however, in their time was a part-time occupation. All of the above mentioned public figures had private jobs as well. Many were private lawyers, writers, or farmers, who tended to those jobs when the government was not in session or their duties permitted them to be elsewhere. None of them likely would have held themselves out to be Congressmen or Senators as their full time occupation, yet each served for many many years as elected officials.
The concept of a part time legislator at the federal level would be unheard of today. Even if Congress wasn’t in session virtually all year around, the myriad of ethical rules, conflicts, and modern circumstances would make it nearly impossible for a Member to hold more than one profession. Of course, many modern Members own businesses, or other positions, but they are not largely responsible for the day-to-day operations of those endeavors. Rather, they have risen to a position of prominence that they can turn functional and operational control of those entities over to others and concentrate full time on being a Member of Congress. The few who have come from professions, namely doctors, have had a rough go in modern times. Sen. Frist, reportedly didn’t keep up his continuing education requirements for his physician’s license in Tennessee (this is not to be read as an indictment or criticism, but merely an example. I think he eventually straightened this all out and, to my knowledge, he remains one of the top rated and most respected heart surgeons in the country), and Sen. Coburn has had difficultly with the Senate ethics rules regarding his ability to maintain his OB-GYN practice back in Oklahoma (I’m not sure what the final disposition of this has been).
In short, I don’t think that many, if any, of the Framers would object to the idea of people dedicating long portions of their lives to public service as elected officials. I do, however, believe they would have a serious problem with the idea that being an elected official is a vocation in and of itself and not simply something one does in conjunction with more noble private occupations.
But then again, Cranky does have the Politics Ph.D, so what do I know.
I think that’s a fair distinction. The elder President Bush is another example of someone who spent most of life in public service, but who spread it over several different positions.
Now, it’s true that long-term service in Congress is not entirely a 20th century phenomenon. Henry Clay is much lionized even today, and I think that he started serving in the Senate sometime soon after he learned to crawl. And at least he moved between jobs at various point. But I can’t believe the Framers envisioned people serving 30, 40, or even 50 years serving in one Congressional or Senate seat.
You raise an interesting question: does a career as an elected representative make one more competent at that job?
One of the things that I have a hard time getting my arms around is the complicated set of rules that Congress uses to manage bills and committees and such. Coupled with the challenge of setting up a semi-permanent campaign and finance organization… it seems to me that it takes a few terms to reach a comfort-zone within which one can get down to the business of legislating.
However, I would think that the same general rules that attend civil servants attend representatives as they move down to and live in D.C.; mainly that living and working there full-time makes one myopic and distant from the real concerns of those you serve.
My experience with civil servants who have stayed in D.C. for more than about five years has not been good. Even the best of them fall into the trap of crafting data AROUND their pet projects rather than letting the problems and concerns drive the data and solutions.
It seems to me that I see the same thing in representatives and their staffs.