Essay On Structure Of Government

As politics often goes, there was an argument. An argument about a problem two people observed. Jane observed that trust in the government is low because Congress does not act on anything substantial. She proposes the solution of replacing every incumbent, regardless of party. Jeff observed that people have a problem with the government, but Jeff blamed it on the “structure” of government. Now, as political arguments go, Jeff and Jane are both correct and incorrect. Jane is correct in that Congress does not act on much anything that is substantial. Jeff is correct in that it is structural and that “The problems seem to be produced by forces beyond any single legislator’s control”. Jane is wrong in that she uses polling, and could very well …show more content…
Many congressmen stay for multiple decades, as this is allowed. Each individual congressman is elected by their district, and so it often happens that the district thinks highly of their congressman, or congresswoman, and they lambast Congress as a whole. They see their congressperson as the white knight. This helps keep in incumbents, and thus, lack of “new change”. Perhaps their congressperson is doing good, for what the district wants, but that good conflicts with what other districts across the country want. So maybe the public see Congress as a whole not doing much, but that could be routed in the fact one district, and thus congressperson, wants one thing and another district want the opposite. They conflict, and less gets done, so neither side is satisfied, but neither side is upset that one got what the other did not want. There is a lack of understanding what Congress’ purpose is, and that narrative is reinforced by incumbents because they want to get re-elected, and thus tell the people what they want to hear. In short, this would be something like “I’ll stand up to Washington”, and so the populous believes(hopes) Washington will “change” but ultimately Washington does not change because it is designed this