Political Leadership

First Quarter 1999

Contrasting Ideas of Representation

The public debate over the impeachment and trial of President Clinton has brought into stark relief two contrasting ideas of representation. One idea is that elected officials have the responsibility to "represent" the will of those who elect them, that is, to do what the majority wants. The contrasting idea is that representatives enter a public office with the responsibility to make judgments about how best to exercise the authority inherent in that office, which includes upholding the Constitution and seeking justice and public welfare for the nation.

When, on January 7, U.S. senators took a special oath as jurors to seek impartial justice in the president's trial, they pledged necessarily to act in accord with the second idea of representation. Because that obligation may very well conflict with current opinion, it would be unjust for any of them merely to represent public opinion. We are not suggesting that if an officeholder adopts one or the other view of representation that that will make clear how he or she should vote on a given issue. Those who decide to do primarily what the people want may find that popular opinion shifts too quickly or that divided opinion gives them insufficient guidance. Those who decide to fulfill their oath of office and pursue justice may not be certain what is best or most just in a given situation.

We believe that because of his actions, President Clinton should have resigned—should still resign. Because he has not done so, and because our system does not allow for a vote of no confidence to force his resignation, many difficult questions have confronted members of the House and the Senate. It is not self-evident that Clinton's actions rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. But it is also not clear what kind of censuring process Congress should have followed apart from the impeachment process.

The origin of the difficulty is certainly not partisanship in Congress, however discouraging that has been, but rather the actions of the president. The Senate is now (mid-January) struggling with all of this—the House impeachment, the president's past and current actions, the demands of justice, and public opinion. We can only pray that wisdom will lead to sound judgment in fulfillment of the office that senators hold, even if sound judgment means discounting the latest opinion poll.

More than Impeachment is at Stake

Apart from the impeachment trial the contrast between the two ideas of representation helps illumine a broader range of difficulties in American politics and government. In a recent interview, the world famous financier and philanthropist George Soros said, "At the moment, people are voting their pocketbooks all the time. They are trying to bend legislation to their own financial interests. The common interest gets lost. I think that there used to be a concept of civic virtue. But because of the sharpening of competition in recent years, people have become so involved in fighting for their survival that they cannot indulge their concern for the common good." (The New York Review of Books, Jan. 14, 1999.)

Unfortunately, this comment is valid for more than financial interests. American politics has increasingly become an interest-group wrestling match that puts little pressure on senators and presidents to "indulge their concern for the common good." If Congress and the president reduce themselves to interest-group brokers, where will the leadership come from to put Social Security on a sound footing, or to resolve the healthcare and education crises afflicting the poor, or to define America's international responsibilities, or to elevate the meaning of government and other high offices as vocations from God to seek justice for all?

What is lacking in American political leadership today? What is wrong with the officials or the system—or both—that often obscures the best and highlights the worst kinds of leadership?

The first difficulty frustrating American government originates with the system more than with individual officials. Over the past three decades, our electoral and party systems have increasingly been molded to accommodate individual candidates, individual members of Congress, and an independent president. At the same time, however, the needs of government at the federal and international level have increasingly come to require decisions by strong coalitions or the team effort of strongly disciplined parties capable of dealing with complex issues. Consequently, presidents now have less authority even among members of their own party in Congress. Congressional majorities have less and less internal coherence. When the critical issues such as healthcare reform, or presidential misconduct, or the bombing of Iraq come to the fore, the leadership vacuum becomes all too apparent. The public witnesses a lack of clear direction or conviction, the absence of agreement and coherence, and the cheapest kind of partisanship on the part of those in power. Public trust erodes.

This first difficulty is aggravated by another that goes hand in hand with the first as both cause and effect. National government increasingly deals with one issue at a time in isolation from the others and apart from a larger governing purpose. Effective, public-minded leadership may be exercised by a representative, senator, or member of the administration on a particular issue. Yet that leadership may remain invisible to the public because it is undermined by higher officials or by overwhelming pressure from one interest group or another with power to trump a public-interest bill in the making.

Campaign for Leadership

Those of us who want to encourage elected officials to fulfill the obligations of their office for the common good rather than simply to represent the wishes of constituents face a great challenge. We must seek to strengthen the commitment of citizens and representatives alike to a high view of both public office and democratic elections. This means:

If this sounds idealistic that is because some of the most basic elements of representative government and responsible citizenship have been forgotten and are no longer taught in our homes and schools. Even those with the highest moral intentions often carry their moralism into the political fray with little critical awareness of the deficiencies of the American political process.

The time has come for conversion—a fundamental reorientation—in our approach to politics and government. Publicly minded Christians should be the first to repent and to adopt a more critical and long-term-reformist approach to civic responsibility. The political system itself, and not just individual presidents or representatives, is in decline. We need more than crusades to save the environment or oppose abortions. We need serious reform of the political system and of the public's attitude toward politics and representative government. Christians should be offering a vision of leadership—and exemplars of that leadership—that upholds a high view of public office and of justice for all.

—The Editors