Judges, Politicians, Bureaucrats

In our unit about judges, politicians, and bureaucrats, both our speaker and our literature discussed the role of public service and how to work cooperatively to accomplish tasks and pass legislation. Specifically, the speaker and the class literature in “Give the People What They Want” and “Thinking About Judicial Behavior” discuss similar ideas about who makes compromises based on seat vulnerability and the use of earmarks, and the importance of public and civic service in changing the course of public policy to benefit your community.

The speaker focused on a statistical breakdown of the House of Representatives, dividing conservatives on the far right and liberals on the far left and a group of moderate democrats and a group of moderate republicans. During this discussion, he talked about how certain democrats and republicans force their candidate to undergo a series of litmus tests to prove that they are the most conservative or the most liberal. He further discussed how democrats and republicans alike are trying to find districts that will fit there ideal of what a candidate should be. The speaker stated that it is vital that a candidate fits the district. It should not matter that it is a conservative democrat or liberal republican, if the candidate is what is best for the district and is likely to represent the views of the many, then they are the right candidate. This line of thinking is extremely similar to that of Jeffrey Lazarus in “Giving People What They Want”. In this essay, Lazarus discuss the idea of demand-side voting factors in which representatives “focus on the degree to which localities or the nation as a whole benefit from, or at least can put to good use, government spending” (339). Lazarus adds that demand for any given type of spending varies on “the district’s geographic, economic, and demographic characteristics” (340). The speaker’s comments and the idea of demand-side spending are also similar because of the polarity that has occurred in our politics. We have reached a point in our politics where it is not simply one side is in favor of earmarks while another is against it. The fringes of the party, the far right and the far-left refuse to compromise in many situations and view such compromises as a betrayal of your ideas. Meanwhile those near the center, in more competitive districts, usually have to prove what specific accomplishments they have achieved, in order to prove to their constituents that they are worthy of another term. Thus, “electorally vulnerable members receive more earmarks than any others” (342). This connects to the speaker’s idea of coalition building. He explained that those on either the center right or the center left will initially try to unite their party behind proposed legislation. He asserted that if or when the effort fails, the center right must then try to get those on board from the center left (and visa-versa). The speaker suggested that this is what kept policy towards the center of the aisle and increased the progression of public policy, incrementally in the right direction.

            The speaker also discussed the benefits of running for office and being a civil servant. Although we first discussed the negatives of the job like no privacy and less than desirable pay, as compared to the private sector, the speaker also noted that jobs come with several benefits. He discussed that the work he does in committees and specifically the work he does in investigating scandals including the Russia probe put in perspective the importance of his work. He said that there is no work, more important than what he is doing now with the Russia investigation because it is about the stability of US democracy. The article “Thinking about judicial behavior” divides judicial behavior into three categories: Legal, Attitudinal, and Strategic models. All three representative equally important ways to upholding the law and doing what you believe is best for the country, similar to the ideas of the speaker. The strategic model looks to use their role as a judge to affect the content of legal policy. This type of judge keeps in mind the long-term ramifications of a decision and uses those ramifications to order a decision that will affect public policy (14). The legal model judges interpret the law as well as possible and upholds the literal intent of the law (6). In an attitudinal model, judges look to make decisions on their personal views of the laws, statutes, and actions (6). Although each type of decision making may have pros and cons, civil servants will employ these strategies because they believe that it is in the best interest of the county.

            The speaker and the literature both advocate for civil service allow a person to do what they believe would strengthen our country and the rule of law through important decision making and careful thought. The speaker and the readings also discussed the political nature of system and the sacrifices and necessities that are needed to make progress in the political field and move legislation in the right direction.