Bailout Becomes Attack Point in Congressional Races

by David Sirota [courtesy of Open Left - Front Page]

With a new poll showing 59 percent of Americans saying they would vote to replace the entire Congress, National Journal has the story about challenger candidates using the bailout to turn that anti-incumbent anger into a campaign weapon. Here's my favorite excerpt:

Rep. Jim Marshall of Georgia's 8th district, is another incumbent with the bailout albatross around his neck. The Georgia Democrat, however, hopes to parlay his unpopular vote into an example of his ability to make tough choices in the face of criticism. In a new ad, "Economic Rescue" (subscription), he explains to his constituents why he voted in support of the bill.

"I approve this message because you elected me to do what's best for America," Marshall explains from his perch on the edge of a desk. "Not what's easy."

This is a meme we heard all week last week - that voting against the majority of constituents is "hard" and therefore it means it's good in a statesman-like way (the Broders of the world like nothing more than this line of thinking).

I take issue with both assumptions in this phony rationale. Voting with Big Business, Big Money and the party Establishments in a political system so dominated by corporate cash is the opposite of "hard" - that's what the system is designed to make easy (which is why that's mostly what Congress does). Likewise, voting against your constituents and the majority of the public doesn't make you a statesman in a functioning democracy - it makes you a sellout.