Find Insurance Online

Mark Meckler, a co-founder of Tea Party Patriots, read the lame-duck session of the Congress at the end of 2010 as an exercise of presumptuous. According to Meckler, "For them to legislate when they've collectively lost their mandate just shows the arrogance of the ruling elite. I can't imagine being repudiated in the way they were and then coming back and saying 'Now that we've been repudiated, let's go pass some legislation. . . . I'm surprised by how blatant it was." Meckler was undoubtedly reflecting a view of human nature with respect to the urge to power that was expressed by Anti-federalist opponents of the U.S. Constitution as it was being ratified in the several states.  Brutus, for example, writes, “This principle, which seems so evidently founded in the reason and nature of things, is confirmed by universal experience. Those who have governed, have been found in all ages ever active to enlarge their powers and abridge the public liberty.” (Brutus, Letter 2, 2.9.25).  Brutus continues, "power, lodged in the hands of rulers to be used at discretion, is almost always exercised to the oppression of the people, and the aggrandizement of themselves; yet most men think if it was lodged in their hands they would not employ it in this manner." (Brutus, Letter 4, 2.9.54). In other words, there is not only a tendency in human nature to overextend political discretion; there is a built-in presumption whereby the drive is blind to itself. Presumption may be hardwired in human nature, such that we unknowingly walk on stilts made of empty straws.

With regard to Merkler's remarks, it might be countered that the 2009-2010 Congress was not beholden to the election of 2010--that the repudiation applied to the next Congress. That is to say, an election is not retroactive. Furthermore, it is not likely that the Democrats would agree that their party was totally repudiated.  It could be argued, for instance, that the moderate or conservative Democrats lost while the liberal Democrats such as Barney Franks and Dennis Kucinich survived. Nancy Pelosi was handily re-elected. Was she to view her votes in the lame duck session as inherently presumptuous? In other words, the foray of the Democratic Party onto Republican turf was pushed back--the Republicans taking back more of the Red states. To be sure, the Democratic Party certainly did not gain ground. At the same time, the resulting party may well be more coherent and thus on message. Meckler was referring not only to the Democrats, but also to the Republicans who "caved" to them. "The Republicans, frankly, have been a disaster," he noted. Even so, according to the NYT, "Tea Party pressure prevailed in blocking the Senate from passing a $1.2 trillion spending bill." However, such influence had to be limited; the 2011-2012 Congress would include a Democrat majority in the Senate (and a Democrat President). 

In short, while Meckler is undoubtedly correct that elected representatives are beholden to their constituents ultimately only by the threat of being voted out, he overstates the repudiation "message" of the 2010 midterm election. In general, so many factors go into elections that it is difficult to gleem one message from the outcome--especially if there are many races. Even if all politics is not local, there are sui generis factors in any race; voters vote for a variety of reasons, even in one race. Superimposing one as a mandate may well be artifice.  Even so, Meckler can be forgiven for responding on the basis of the view of human nature espoused by the Anti-federalists, for hard constraints are undoubtedly necessary to hold people holding power to account. In a republic (or a republic of republics), the possibility of being voted out of office is the stick that even the most powerful representatives must heed.

The Anti-federalist Brutus wrote back in 1788, "Perhaps no restraints are more forcible, than such as arise from responsibility to some superior power.--Hence it is that the true policy of a republican government is, to frame it in such manner, that all persons who are concerned in the government, are made accountable to some superior for their conduct in office.--This responsibility should ultimately rest with the People." (Brutus, Letter 16, 2.9.197, p. 187) Therefore, the mandate of repudiation is that of no longer being in office, yet even here the reasons for one's defeat are not always evident. The will of the people may well be a misnomer; they may be many.

Sources: Kate Zernike, "As New Congress Begins, Actions of G.O.P. Leaders Anger Tea Party Activists," The New York Times, January 2, 2011, p. 13.
Brutus quotes: Herbert J. Storing, ed., The Anti-Federalist, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985.