At what point did it become acceptable for elected politicians to represent their parties and not their constituencies?

PO3 John Wagner — Mon, 16 Jan 2017 18:17:33 -0500

In my lifetime there has been an incredibly pronounced drift towards our elected officials engaging in public displays for their party. I haven't seen much inside working but the few I have always seemed to curb party enthusiasm at the door and take care of constituent business in the office.
I don't believe long term verbosity can have positive effects for reelection of these grandstanders.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 16 at 2017 6:27 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 16 Jan 2017 18:27:55 -0500

When they stopped caring about the voters needs.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 16 at 2017 6:29 PM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 16 Jan 2017 18:29:40 -0500

When we became dumb enough to vote for the party instead of the individual?

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 16 at 2017 7:12 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:12:30 -0500

When they realized that their voters would keep electing them over and over no matter what they did (or didn't do, more likely).

Response by Cpl Joshua Caldwell made Jan 16 at 2017 8:14 PM

Cpl Joshua Caldwell — Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:14:09 -0500

Hard to tell, some members of Congress sold us out long long ago, while others are new to the game. It would be nice to find a way to abolish the party system, but I have no idea how we would make that work and I sure dont want what Europe has.

Response by LTC Kevin B. made Jan 16 at 2017 9:25 PM

LTC Kevin B. — Mon, 16 Jan 2017 21:25:33 -0500

Probably when re-election rates skyrocketed and incumbents no longer felt vulnerable. We can change that if we voted out the politicians who only listen to one side of the political spectrum.

Response by PO3 John Wagner made Jan 17 at 2017 2:12 AM

PO3 John Wagner — Tue, 17 Jan 2017 02:12:00 -0500

Politics by the very nature of whom it attracts reduces all human behavior to the lowest COMMON denominator...

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2017 9:45 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 17 Jan 2017 09:45:31 -0500

In 1788 when the first presidential election occurred??

Response by SGT Dave Tracy made Jan 17 at 2017 10:13 AM

SGT Dave Tracy — Tue, 17 Jan 2017 10:13:00 -0500

I don't think there is a single point in time when it switched to Party Uber Alles; rather it was a progression (or regression?) over time, like the slow dimming of a light bulb. But I would venture to say that the days of "my country before my party" are, for the most part, long behind us.

Response by Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen made Jan 17 at 2017 11:28 AM

Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen — Tue, 17 Jan 2017 11:28:49 -0500

Fantastic question! I'm not sure one can point to any single timeframe or event. In the time that I have paid attention to politics it seems that politicians are less and less connected with or concerned about their constituents. Sure they occasionally get laws passed that bring dollars or jobs to their districts but their real interest seems to be in pleasing the party not the people back home. For every hour they spend in town hall meetings with the folks back home they spend 2+ hours helping the party raise funds; and this isn't by choice, the party requires them to raise funds. We seem to be seeing more and more politicians who have questionable support from constituents get reelected because they have the support of the party and its coffers. And, that may be the answer to your question, look to the money. Many politicians get more money from the party and its PACs than from the people back home, so they're going to represent the party first.

Response by Cpl Justin Goolsby made Jan 17 at 2017 11:34 AM

Cpl Justin Goolsby — Tue, 17 Jan 2017 11:34:06 -0500

I would say that point came when we made it incredibly expensive for anyone to run for office. These days, if you want to run for office, you need the backing of one of the big parties. Whereas Trump was independently wealthy, he didn't exactly have to cater to the Republicans every whim.

If running for office were actually feasible so every Joe Schmoe could actually do it like it's literally supposed to be in the Constitution, then you would see less people representing parties and more representing their constituents.

Response by CSM Thomas McGarry made Jan 17 at 2017 11:36 AM

CSM Thomas McGarry — Tue, 17 Jan 2017 11:36:30 -0500

I agree! As an example attempt to contact a Congressman or Senator about an issue that concerns you but you are not located in their district-it's almost impossible to do unless you use snail mail!

Response by SFC J Fullerton made Jan 17 at 2017 12:34 PM

SFC J Fullerton — Tue, 17 Jan 2017 12:34:04 -0500

Are you referring to Republicans that weren't all in with their party's nominee?

Response by Sgt Bob Leonard made Jan 17 at 2017 3:34 PM

Sgt Bob Leonard — Tue, 17 Jan 2017 15:34:59 -0500

I don't think it happened at any one point in time. It's taken over two hundred years to get to where we are now, and the System as it is now is the result of changes over time.

My thoughts on how to "fix" it....

1. Term limits for all elected Officials. I mean real term limits. President, Senator, or Representative: two terms total, no matter what the combination.

2. Ineligible for any Federal job after your second term.

3. There can be only one issue dealt with in any piece of legislation. No riders or addendums. If it takes more than one type-written page to explain it, or it can't be understood by a twelve year old, then it's too complicated. Pare it down.

4. Federal money flows in only one direction: from the citizens to the Government for the purpose of legitimate Gov't. functions. There's no Constitutional justification for the Federal Gov't. to fund any private or corporate activities like Planned Parenthood or oil company subsidies or farm/crop subsidies or...

5. There should be no Federal Welfare system. I'm not uncaring about the plights of those less fortunate than I and mine. But caring for them needs to be addressed at the local level. Again, no Constitutional justification for Federal Welfare.

6. No expenditures for any Military operations anywhere in the world without a formal Declaration of War by Congress. There are bad people in the world. Always have been, always will be. But the US Military is in place to defend this Country from attack, and it should be the People, through Congress, who decide where and when we engage our Forces.

7. Eliminate the concept of "corporations" as legal entities for Tax purposes. If a particular product or service earns X amount of dollars, then that entire amount gets assigned as income to some PERSON, not an entity that exists only on paper.

8. Two years of mandatory service after graduation from high school. Not limited to Military Service! (Oh god, no. Not a Nation of people trained/experienced in only the Military.) Could be any kind of service that benefits the Country and its citizens. The point being to get young people experience in working to benefit someone or something other than themselves.

9. Adequate funding for Public Schools. Curriculum to include comprehensive study of not just the basics (reading, writing, 'rithmatic) but American History, as well. The good, the bad, and the ugly. Details, like the fact that Paul Revere rode from Boston to Lexington, a distance of about 15 miles, while Israel Bissell rode for four days, covering about 350 miles, to bring the news to Philadelphia where the fledgling Congress was meeting. Every student, indeed, every citizen, should be able to answer the same questions that are asked of non-citizens applying for American Citizenship.

As I ponder some of these, I also realize they are simple and probably too simplistic. We live in a complicated world and the "simple" answer is not always the effective one. When you're ankle-deep in water in your kitchen because the river flooded, turning off the kitchen faucet isn't going to help. And there is no end to the creativity of mankind to "game the system". No matter how we design the system, there will be those who find ways to work it to their advantage, without regard for the welfare of their fellow citizens or the Country.

Not a simple question. No simple answer. But one we need to keep asking ourselves. Thanks for asking PO3 John Wagner!

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Jan 17 at 2017 3:52 PM

CAPT Kevin B. — Tue, 17 Jan 2017 15:52:41 -0500

I'd say neither is correct. First and foremost, a Pol will represent their own interest over everything else. Then, they'll affiliate with those who can best further that interest. So club membership has its benefits but make no mistake, it's what the party and the constituents can do for them, not the other way around. Their interest is to do what they think is best for them. Pander to this thing? Sure. Kiss butt as needed? Yep. It's all about power and control. That's why they so aggressively go after your wallet and tell you how you should think. Then they don't say that's what they're doing during the campaign. It's all about getting the renewal ticket punched.

Response by SGT Jerrold Pesz made Jan 17 at 2017 4:34 PM

SGT Jerrold Pesz — Tue, 17 Jan 2017 16:34:40 -0500

This is not something new although some politicians used to be better at hiding it. Many also count on the fact that few constituents actually pay much attention to what their representatives actually do instead of what they say when they are back home. For example my very conservative congressional district kept electing a liberal democrat for many years. When he was home in TN he sounded like the most conservative politician on the planet. At home he claimed to be pro-life, pro-gun, anti-illegal immigration, anti-tax, etc. In Washington he voted over 90% with the far left. It was once explained to me that he didn't have a choice. Vote against your party and you find yourself with no committee assignments, no campaign money, no power. Since very few actually followed how their representatives voted he got away with that for over 20 years.

Response by CPT Daniel Walk, M.B.A. made Jan 17 at 2017 5:02 PM

CPT Daniel Walk, M.B.A. — Tue, 17 Jan 2017 17:02:10 -0500

There are two dates you can look to you to answer this question. June 15, 1804 and April 8, 1913. On these dates the 12th and 17th amendments to the United States Constitution were ratified. These are the dates which removed the representation of the individual states from the Senate and deleted the potential to have more than one party represented in the White House.

Response by PO2 Skip Kirkwood made Jan 22 at 2017 9:01 PM

PO2 Skip Kirkwood — Sun, 22 Jan 2017 21:01:14 -0500

It never did. That's why the career politicians lost the big one this year.