Tuesday, 06 October 2009

We need a bigger House?

Jonah Goldberg, National Review Online :

Beyond principle, there are practical reasons to expand Congress. For decades, presidential candidates have promised to change the “way Washington works.” But once elected, they’re soon captured by their own congressional parties, which are in turn beholden to the “old bulls” and constituencies rooted in interests outside their districts.

A Congress of, say, 5,000 citizen-legislators would change that overnight. Would it cost more money? Yes. But today’s huge staffs could be cut, and perks and pork might even be curtailed by using the old chewing gum rule: If there’s not enough for everyone, nobody can have any.

Term-limit activists have the right idea — getting new blood in Washington — but their remedy is anti-democratic. The trick is to swamp Congress with new blood and new ideas. Want more minorities in Congress? Done. Want more libertarians? More socialists? More blue-collar workers? Done, done, done.

In free-speech debates, it’s often said that the cure for bad speech is more speech. Well, the cure for a calcified Congress just might be more members; the remedy for an undemocratic system, more democracy.

It’s certainly interesting to think about. Be sure to read the whole thing. The representation of Montana versus Rhode Island should immediately show you something’s wrong.

posted on October 6, 2009 11:52 PM




Copyright © 2002-2013 | XHTML 1.0 | CSS | Powered by Movable Type 4.2-en