20 / CHRONICLESnAN OBSOLETE CONGRESSnby Stan Langland and Fred Westn^ ^ T T ere, sir, the people govern,” said Alexander Hamil-nJL JL ton in 1788, as he argued for the direct election ofnmembers to the proposed U.S. House of Representatives.n”Here they act by their immediate representatives.” Anworking democratic republic was not a new idea, but whatnwas new was putting the idea to the test. The task of thenFramers was to build a barrier to tyranny, utilizing the bestnlessons of history in combination with the still-developingnyearnings of diverse peoples whose sense of public spirit wasnas great as their sense of national direction.nAs a result, the new Americans were edgy, determined tonmaintain their recendy won individual independence bynFred West is a retired professor of English and has workednin several countries including Greece, Vietnam, andnSaudi Arabia. Stan Langland was a staff assistant in thenU.S. House of Representatives from 1961 to 1969. Bothnhave served in government, including the Foreign Servicenof the U.S. Information Agency.nnncontrolling their representatives, yet eager to show themselvesnas loyal citizens of a new nation. “An irritablenpatriotism” is how Tocqueville phrased the feeling, after hisnvisit in 1831. The young Frenchman observed that thenAmericans kept themselves informed and involved becausenof their distrust of government authority.nThree basic assumptions lay at the heart of the Framers’nidea of a legislative body elected by the people, all valid atnthe time but all seriously eroded today. The first assumptionnwas that voters can readily understand major issues and arengenerally well-informed. The second was that voters cannevaluate the performance of their representatives clearly andnaccurately. The third assumption was that voters will voteninadequate representatives out of ofEce and replace themnwith others more capable and more responsive to thenprinciples expressed by the Framers.nThe spirit of the tri-branch form of government is clear:nTo forestall tyranny, a system of checks and balances limitsnthe roles of the three branches, in some cases specificallynand in others not, but always within the context of anmanageable size, with a sense of public interest guiding thenaction of all. A responsible electorate would, by Hamilton’snperception, place a fundamental reliance on the good faithnand judgment of an even more responsible body of electednrepresentatives.nBut that vision of good faith and responsiveness isnseriously clouded today. How could the Framers foresee anhighly diverse nation of 250 million, or a Congress with anHouse of 435 members and a Senate of 100? They did notneven write into the Constitution a maximum limit on thensize of Congress; Article I merely states, “The Number ofnRepresentatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand.”nHow could they, or anyone, expect efficiency andnworkable harmony to prevail in a Congress burdened withnsuch numbers and such fractured interests as ours?nNor could they foresee the extent to which politicalnpartisanship would shape events in Congress. Indeed, theynmade no provision for political parties at all. GeorgenWashington strongly opposed the idea of parties. Althoughnfor years the party system served a legitimate function, todaynit is primarily an election device rather than a base fornpolitical principle. Southern Democrats are generally morenconservative than northeastern Republicans. When partyndifferences are more rhetorical than real, posturing takes thenplace of forthrightness, and voters turn away in disgust.nArtful party appeals narrow the perceptions of votersninstead of enhancing the quality of election campaigns. Thenparties tend to degenerate into vehicles for self-aggrandizementnof individual politicians pursuing power without ancommitment to the public good. Furthermore, with Congressncontrolled by one party and the White House bynanother, the result can be a paralysis of statesmanship thatninvites catastrophe.nBut paralysis is only one of two major flaws which plaguenus today. The other is the growing alienation from government,nfelt by a resentful public. By definition, our system isnintended to be a government by the people, but increasinglynthe public feels itself unable to participate. This, in turn.n