Crackerbarrels and Tea Parties: An Experiential Report on Legislative Processes, Essay Example

Concrete Experience

One of the things that I have always liked about the American system of government is that the average citizen has the authority to participate in it. So when I began attending a series of local cracker barrel sessions, town hall meetings and political dinners, I went not only as an observer, but also as someone who is a part of the government and who wielded a certain amount of political power. I knew that legislators needed two things to stay in office – donations and votes and that I had the power to give or withhold either or both of these things.  Attending the crackerbarrel sessions gave me even more power, because it allowed me to talk to legislators face to face. I could voice my opinion on any issue I wanted to or hold legislators accountable for bad decisions.

Still, I had never been to a cracker barrel session before, so I felt a bit awkward coming in. Even though there was a decent turn out, I noticed that there was enough empty space so that anyone who spoke up would be visible to every person in the room. I could see that others around me had the same reservations as I did about asking questions. Everyone looked around; hoping someone else would have the courage to ask something about the issues they cared about.  But just as I began to think that I ought to get the ball rolling, a young, African American woman stood up and someone handed her a microphone.  She did not look as nervous as the rest of us, and I noticed that the others around, rather than looking at her as if she was an idiot, were relieved that she had said something.  Indeed, some of us admired her courage very much.

“My name is Martha Healey and I want to talk about the tobacco tax,” she said confidently.  “Cigarettes are already expensive. But those of us who are addicted can’t help but buy them. Economic times are really, really hard. Some of us are working out tails off trying to feed our families. Our jobs are stressful and smoking relieves some of the stress for awhile. It makes us feel better. So do we really deserve to have to have to pay more and more and more, just to relax for a few minutes every day?”

Some of the people around me murmured in agreement. Some applauded. Others seemed angry. The legislators looked a little uncomfortable, but the senator whose turn it was spoke up. “I understand your worries about feeding your family and I sympathize with you,” he said. Nobody really wants to pay taxes. But as a former smoker, myself, I can tell you that it is possible to quit smoking. It is hard. No doubt about it. But the state is beginning to realize how damaging smoking really is, not only to the smoker, but to his family and those around him. The harmful effect of second-hand smoke really should make us think twice about tobacco use. Now, I think this tax may be the push some people need to quit filling their bodies with toxins. I know you’re worried about feeding you family, but you should also worry about your family’s health. So that’s why I support raising the tax.”

Some of the people around me hissed and some clapped.  But the next legislator began to speak. “I oppose raising the tax,” he began. “Some of the dangers of second-hand smoke have been trumped up. Furthermore, I think that the more money we get back into the hands of the people during this time of economic hardship the better. I think letting people spend their own money in the way they see fit is the best way to stimulate the economy. We have made a mistake in thinking that the government should choose how people live instead of realizing that people should be telling the government how to act. So I will continue to oppose the tax. Thank you, Martha.” A lot of the people in the room began clapping and I found myself applauding with them.

Reflections and Observations

What surprised me most about the crackerbarrel session was that it made it so easy to sympathize with the arguments of both sides.  I am not a smoker myself, and many of the arguments against smoking have made sense to me. The senator’s arguments about pushing people toward healthier lifestyles made sense. Encouraging people to make choices that are healthy for their families and even themselves is not a bad idea. But when Martha presented the issue as something more personal and the tax as duty that made it hard for families who were already struggling to provide food for their families, supporting the tax became harder to do. Meanwhile, the second representative’s argument that people ought to decide how to live for themselves resonated with me. Sometimes taxation becomes not just a source of income for the government, but also a way by which governments can restrict the freedom of the people. The knowledge I gained from listening to the arguments and claims of Martha and the two senators has made me and more informed voter and citizen.

Generalizations, Principles and Theories

The principles and theories that backup my newfound findings are many and varied. But the idea of limited government has been around since the time of America’s founding. Thomas Jefferson, in particular, believed that any time the government began telling the people what to do, rather than listening to the people, the government had become abusive. Abraham Lincoln, meanwhile, spoke of the government as something of the people, by the people for the people.  Recent theorists such as Thomas P. Barnett have argued that the more freedom people are given, the more prosperous their nation becomes. For Barnett, freedom means success. Still others believe that the more representatives listen to the people, the more popular they become. The more detached politicians become from their constituents, the less likely their constituents are to vote for them.

Testing and Application

I was able to apply this theory to current politics. I made a note of the local and state legislators who responded to their constituents concerns in the cracker barrel sessions and tracked their success in the election season. I also tested the responsiveness of the legislators who had participated by e-mailing and calling their offices. In one case, staff members took comments and I received a form letter back. The response did not address my concern directly and my feelings toward these legislators were not very favorable.

In another case, a legislator returned an e-mail and was cordial and understanding, but he would not commit to any sort of policy changes. Later on, he did visit a political blog post to offer support of other ideas. I found myself favoring this candidate over his opponent because of his willingness to lend an ear to my concerns.

When I looked at the success rate of the politicians I followed, I was not surprised to find that the three representatives and one senator who had most sympathized with their constituents during the cracker barrel sessions won their respective campaigns. Yet, some of the representatives who I felt had not listened to their constituents also won re-election.  Still, two did not. That fact seems to give some credence to the theories of legislative responsiveness.

Subtopic 2: Identify Formal Procedures and Dynamic Impact: Cracker Barrel Panel Process

Concrete Experience

I noticed that some of the procedures the legislators followed in the crackerbarrel sessions I attended were quite formal. Each representative was given at least three minutes to address each question that was asked. Furthermore, each representative or senator took turns going first, unless a citizen addressed a particular legislator directly. Then, that legislator had a chance to answer first and then others could chime in if they had anything to add. It seemed to me very much like a political debate.

But some of the events that impacted the cracker barrel sessions were dynamic.  The debates that were sparked by unexpected questions from constituents, for instance, sometimes led legislators to debate issues that they would not necessarily debate publicly on their own initiatives. For instance, a debate over internet taxation sparked an interesting exchange between two legislators of opposing parties. One argued that the tax would help keep state businesses alive. “Like Billy’s Pancake House!” he suggested.  “You can’t get better pancakes and eggs anywhere else! It would be a shame to lose it.” The other retorted that no one buys pancakes and eggs over the internet. I and the other voters, even those who had nodded along during the defense of the tax laughed a little bit over the exchange.

Reflections and Observations

Dynamic factors can enrich debate. Formal procedures keep order, but it is only when people begin heatedly speaking their minds that we really begin to discuss the issues. Sometimes, legislators try to offer protection that is not actually needed.  Their intentions are good. The representative who wanted to protect Billy’s pancake house had his constituents’ best interest in mind. But he not stopped to consider that some of the businesses that he was trying to protect were not actually threatened by internet competition.

Indeed, many local business remain unthreatened by competition from the internet, because they already offer low prices and those who shop locally do not have to pay shipping charges.  The exchange was useful, because it gave those of us who were unfamiliar with the debate over internet taxation a good idea of what was at stake. But another thing that made the exchange valuable was the way in which it drew people into the debate. Those who had seemed disinterested in many of the topics we discussed suddenly started paying attention once the rest of us began laughing. This taught me that humor in politics is a very useful tool.

But the most interesting thing about this exchange was that it caused the legislator who had been set on an internet tax to re-evaluate his feelings. He acknowledged his error, and, indeed, admitted that the representative who had taken him to tax might have a good point.

Generalizations, Principles and Theories

Many have argued that competition leads to improvements. This can be true, not only in the business world but in the political world as well. Democratic theorists have suggested that open debates improve policy and legislation. Still others have suggested that when those who are closest to a problem have a hand in its administration, the problem is generally addressed more suitably and efficiently. In theory, then, cracker barrel sessions out to lead to better, more thoughtful legislation and community participation in the events should allow for more suitable solutions to problems.

Testing and Application

I was able to see these theories applied in actual governance. I followed the congressional debate over the internet tax and found that the representative who had, at first supported the internet tax had voted against it. A real debate over the issues had made this legislator reconsider his opinions. He had changed his stance because he believed that the people of his state would be better served without a new tax – but he would not have believed so had he not been confronted at the cracker barrel session. He would not have been confronted by the quick thinking representative about his views if the debate had not been started by a question from a voter. This scenario proves the significance of the power of one voice in politics.

Subtopic 3: Examine the Societal Influences and Trends: Nation of Dependents vs. Anti-Establishment Sentiment

One trend I noticed while attending the crackerbarrel sessions was that a lot of people expected the government to take care of them. I watched as citizen after citizen asked the legislators questions that amounted to, “What are you going to give me?” One of the moments that sticks out in my mind was when a larger woman spoke up and said, “I need fat reduction surgery, but I can’t afford it. What will you do to help someone like me?” Another lady spoke of trouble with her sewer system and wanted someone to advocate her. One man asked about raises in teacher salaries. I chose to use my turn to ask about improvements on city roads.

But when I attended a Tea Party rally, no one asked what the government could do for them. Instead, my fellow partiers voiced concerns over the government doing too much.  One speaker spoke of too much governmental influence in education.  Most were upset by the government’s disregard for their wishes when congress passed an unpopular healthcare bill, in spite of what they said was overwhelming public displeasure with the bill.

I voiced concern over being fined for not purchasing healthcare when I was not sure whether or not I could afford it. I also talked with fellow partiers about my experiences with government healthcare, when I had been on Medicaid for a problem that was minor but could have been fatal if not dealt with properly, government workers had lost my paperwork several times and I had had to go through hoops to get anything done. They issued me a card that did not work at my doctor’s office and only after having my doctor call their offices did any of my problems get resolved. I did, however, eventually get the care I needed. But I found a cheap insurance plan from Kaiser and had switched over after my terrible experience with government care.

My care at Kaiser was much more professional and desirable. Although the cost for my insurance was very low, I was treated well. My paperwork was processed quickly without any glitches and those who cared for me were friendly and warm. My experience with Kaiser was actually pleasant, while working with Medicaid had been something akin to having a tooth pulled.

Reflections and Observations

My experience at the crackerbarrel sessions revealed a societal trend towards governmental pampering. Some Americans have come to be dependent on government intervention for everything from roadwork to fat reduction.  But my experience at the Tea Party rally showed me that there is another trend catching on in America. That trend involves an anti-establishmentarian sentiment and a move toward individual freedom and responsibility. The two seem directly opposed to one another, yet both are alive and well in America today.

Generalizations, Principles and Theories

Modern thinkers such as medical doctor Beth Haynes of American Thinker suggest that the more Americans take from the government, the more dependent on the government they become. They warn that when the government gets involved in politics, quality and competition decreases.  Haynes points to the fact that since the government got involved in education, 90% of primary and secondary schools are run by the government and the only alternatives tend to be expensive (Haynes). Lack of competition, according to theory, decreases quality. Yet, others argue that government intervention has propped America up when it could not stand by itself. They point to Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal as evidence of the success of governmental programs.

Testing and Application

To test whether or not the nation was becoming dependent on government help, I surveyed 100 people in my neighborhood and asked them whether or not they would be willing to let government officials choose their physician and make minor healthcare decisions for them in exchange for full payment of their medical bills. The great majority of those surveyed said that they would be willing to give up this freedom of choice in exchange for full medical payment. Yet, those who would not accept the offer spoke out very strongly against governmental intrusion. I also tested the presence of anti-establishmentarian sentiment by asking those if they preferred candidates who had served several terms in congress or a candidate from the outside. 56% preferred an outside, while 42% preferred a seasoned candidate and 2% did not know.

Subtopic 4: Identify and Discuss the Major Political Impacts: Experience With No Child Left Behind and the Tea Party

Concrete Experience

Because many in the nation have become dependent on governmental help, legislators know that promising favors and spending can win them votes. I saw this first hand when I attended a dinner for Mark Dayton, who was running for governor in Minnesota. The steelworkers supported Dayton because they said, he helped working families get jobs, education, healthcare and better pensions. I noticed that they were for Dayton because he promised them benefits. But the anti-establishmentarianism trend seems to have had a greater political impact. I could see from my experience at the Tea Party that those who were against the established way of doing things were greatly motivated. Furthermore, the turnout was even greater than that of the crackerbarrel sessions.

One African American man at the Tea Party said that he had moved into a new, government housing project when he was young. He had seen the buildings go from beautiful facilities to broken down, vandalized facilities because many of the people living there were bitter and unappreciative, in spite of having been given free or cheap housing. He said that even after being given the chance to live in the projects for such low rates, they felt as if society and the government owed them more. He also said that most of the children in the projects grew up without fathers. He credited his own father with saving his life, because so many kids in the projects had ended up living lives of crime and drug use. Some had died. Others seemed doomed to live in poverty. But his father had stuck around and worked hard. He had pulled his family out of their life in the projects and ended up being able to afford his own home.

Reflections and Observations

It seemed to me that anger with the establishment was quickly overtaking people’s complacency with governmental programs. Although many people were still looking for handouts, perks or government care in one way or another, the sentiments of the Tea Party were newer and bolder. Furthermore, it seemed to me that the man who spoke of growing up in the projects was claiming that society’s reliance on government had lead the government to make choices that had ultimately hurt those living in the projects rather than helping them.

Because many people who had received government help were discovering that that “help” was more of a burden than a gift, they were joining with other Tea Partiers to protest government involvement in other affairs including healthcare. This, in turn, has hurt some established candidates’ chances of winning. Barbara Boxer in California is facing the closest race she has had in a very long time. Mike Castle in Delaware who assumed he would get the Republican nomination for Senator, lost out to Tea Party favorite Christine O’Donnell. Long-term Senator Harry Reid looks likely to lose his seat in Nevada as well. What I learned from my time amongst the Tea Partiers and from watching and reading the news shows that current societal trends are against long-time legislators.

Generalizations, Principles and Theories

While researching, I discovered that the theories of University of Delaware Political Scientist Joe Pika supported my observations. According to Pika, Republican voters have gotten very frustrated with established candidates. Therefore, anyone who compromises too much becomes a target for those who sympathize with the Tea Party or other conservatives. Pika even goes so far as to call this new turn toward conservatism a “revolution.”

Testing and Application

In order to test my theory of anti-establishment sentiment, I, again, surveyed 100 people from my neighborhood, asking if they had supported or trusted congress more before or after the healthcare debacle. The overwhelming majority – about eighty per cent – said that they trusted congress less. The reaction against the problems caused by too much dependence on the government, then, has had some serious repercussions for legislators.

Subtopic 5: Analyze the Financial Influences: Courting the Middle Class, Deals With the Wealthy, Poverty and Political Action

Concrete Experience

At one town hall meeting, I saw poverty motivating middle-aged women and men to speak up against bus charges that she said had increased even while seating had become scarcer. She said that she could understand a raise in rates if there were even a place to sit, but to pay so much for a bus with standing room only seemed unfair. Another woman talked about not being able to afford to eat, but being told to “tighten her belt” to pay for higher bus fares. She accused politicians of not caring about the poor.

Furthermore, at two of the crackerbarrel sessions I attended, it looked to me as if certain businessmen were favored over other constituents. They sat in the best seats and the legislators often called on them, addressing them by their first names. At political dinners, the wealthy and well connected seemed more favored as well. Some dinner tickets were over $100 a head.

Reflections and Observations

From what I observed, businessmen and wealthy individuals have greater access to legislators. Whether it is because of their ability to lobby or because they charge to meet with constituents at their fancy dinners, legislators often virtually rope themselves off from the poor and the middle class. On the other hand, their policies are often focused on the poor. Many social programs such as housing projects and discounted medical care are designed to help the poor afford what they otherwise could not. Therefore it seems as if wealth and poverty are the greatest influences over legislative activity.

Furthermore, I can’t help but worry that carrying too much about money might make legislators care less about ethics than they ought to, and that this in turn can ruin public trust. Scandals like the Enron scandal and the suspicion that the Bush administration had pursued the war in Iraq because of its ties to Halliburton made citizens less trusting of the government. The administrative branch is not the only branch that is suffering from that mistrust. People have begun to distrust their legislators on a state and local level as well. The Democrats’ healthcare bill might have received better reception had the Democrats not cut deals with insurance companies.

Generalizations, Principles and Theories

Backing up my observations are the theories like that of the Foundation For Economic Education, which suggests that welfare makes people less self-sufficient and writings that have suggested that as politicians become more entrenched in Washington they care less about their constituents and more about their own campaigns.

Testing and Application

In order to test my theory, I shelled out the money to attend a dinner that was being thrown for local Democratic candidates. Here, I observed, the legislators were less awkward and aloof. They seemed more at home in the presence of businessmen and union friends. I also had the opportunity to volunteer on the phones for a political campaign for a day. What struck me as most interesting was the fact that issues were never discussed, but numbers and funding always were. My test backed up my idea that legislators were becoming less concerned with their constituents and more concerned with wealth. Therefore, I thought it fair to conclude that wealth has the greatest influence over modern day politics.

Subtopic 6: Identify and Explain the Issues Regarding “Massaging” or Manipulating the System for Gain

Concrete Experience

During my day at the Tea Party rally, I was able to participate in discussions of Charlie Rangel Case. It revealed to me how damaging it can be for a legislator to be caught “massaging” or manipulating the system for gain. One of the speakers was able to capitalize on the fact that Congress had put Charlie Rangel in charge of the ways and means committee, while Rangel was busy manipulating the system. “This guy” he said, “used rent-subsidized housing and taxpayer funded stationery for his campaigns! And they put him in a high, financial position!” There were murmurs of outrage from the crowd. But what bothered the Tea Partiers more than the Rangel case was a scandal involving a local candidate who had been accused of using public property as a vacation home for his friends and family. The partiers thought that the property ought to be made available for public use.

Reflections and Observations

Massaging the system increases distrust and public anger. It can provide many benefits to candidates. But it can also ruin careers and lead to jail time, trials or suicide as in the case of Enron and Rangel.

Generalizations, Principles and Theories

The theories of Eunjung Choi and Jongseok Woo suggest that political corruption becomes more of a factor when economic times are hard. This certainly seems to be the case in American politics. Men like Rangel were able to engage in corrupt practices while the economy was in good health. Now that people are losing jobs, they are looking for someone to blame. Corrupt politicians make easy targets.

Testing and Application

In order to see if these theories correctly reflected the attitude of the American people, I examined instances of anti-establishment sentiment during prosperous years and economic recessions. I found that unfailingly, anti-establishment sentiment grew when economies suffered and petered off during times of prosperity. I also surveyed people without jobs and people who had jobs to see which were more inclined to take issue with the establishment. Although both groups admitted to having some problems with the establishment, those who lacked jobs were unhappier than those who had them.