Jamie

Weinstein

Read Jamie's bio and previous columns

August 25, 2009

Eric Massa: Right on Burkean Principle, Wrong on Health Care Substance

“I will vote adamantly against the interests of my district if I actually think what I am doing is going to be helpful,” Democratic Congressman Eric Massa told a group of left-wing bloggers last week while declaring his support of a single-payer health care system. “I will vote against their opinion if I actually believe it will help them.”

The New York congressman’s comments caused hysteria among many. How could a congressman so brazenly declare his intent to defy the opinions of his constituency?

At dinner last week in Florida with my parents, one of their friends was shocked when I said I thought the principle that Massa articulated was sound even if the policy he promoted was decidedly not. On principle, I argued, I do not think our representatives should always follow the temporary passions of the electorate, most vividly expressed in opinion polls.

“Wow,” my parents’ friend replied in shock, as if I had just espoused some anti-democratic, fascist principle. But it isn’t some outrageously despotic principle, I assured him. It is merely Burkean.

Edmund Burke, an Irish-born British parliamentarian and author, who most famously wrote the classic Reflections on the Revolution in France, was elected to Parliament from Bristol in 1774. During his 1774 campaign, he gave a speech to his would-be constituents. After telling them that “it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents,” Burke made the following powerful statement.

“It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs,” Burke said, “and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable.”

Burke concluded, echoing the sentiments Massa would inartfully express over 200 years later, “Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”

Burke wasn’t just stating some abstruse theory of representation he had no intention of following. He stated a principle by which he intended to be guided. This became abundantly clear in 1778 when Burke supported a free trade bill against the interests of his merchant Bristol constituents because he thought free trade (in this case with Ireland) was ultimately beneficial to the country. Facing the backlash from his constituents, Burke declared, "If, from this conduct, I shall forfeit their suffrages at an ensuing election, it will stand on record an example to future representatives of the Commons of England, that one man at least had dared to resist the desires of his constituents when his judgment assured him they were wrong.”

This is not some anti-democratic philosophy that Burke espoused. Whether one agrees with Burke’s position or not, he was acting statesmanlike. He was defying the temporary passions of his constituency because he felt that their stance was wrong for the country. What’s more, he was ready to accept the consequences of his actions. Burke ultimately had to find another district to represent.

So while Massa is wrong on the substance of his health care stance, his principle is correct, even if he probably was unaware he was echoing Burke when he promulgated it last week. The founders too allowed for such a principle. America is not a direct democracy where the American people vote by referendum on each and every issue. America is, by design, a democratic republic where constituents elect representatives. While the founders intended the House of Representatives to be closer to the people than, say, the Senate, they allowed for the principle Burke articulated. And if “the people” don’t like how the representative is representing them, they can vote him or her out.

On a broader level, we don’t want our politicians always being guided by opinion polls. If former President George W. Bush, for instance, merely listened to the temporary passions of the American people as expressed in opinion polls, he would not have instituted the surge in Iraq. And if he did not do that, Iraq would likely be in chaos with no prospect of success like there is now.

Unfortunately, too few of our representatives ever act Burkean. They are too afraid of losing their job. But this un-statesmanlike attitude by many congressmen and senators is the reason we as a nation have failed to address important issues that threaten our country’s long-term welfare like entitlement reform.

This is not to say that it is always right to defy the opinion of one’s constituency. But the majority opinion in a district or in the nation at large most assuredly isn’t always right. Our congressmen should represent their district but they also should act in the best interest of the country. Sometimes this means they will have to defy the majority opinion in their district. Their constituents, in turn, have every right to boot their congressman out of office.

It’s complicated, for sure. But Massa wasn’t outrageously wrong on principle. On substance, however, he is completely out of touch. For this, and not for the Burkean principle he articulated, he should be sent packing when congressional elections roll around next year.

© 2009 North Star Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.

Click here to talk to our writers and editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.

To e-mail feedback about this column, click here. If you enjoy this writer's work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry it.

This is column # JW084. Request permission to publish here.