Final Thoughts

My internship in Representative Smith's office has finished and my time in Washington, D.C. has come to an end. I am sad to leave this city that I have gotten to know so well the past few months, as well as wonderful people that I met while I was here. It was a fantastic semester and I truly feel that I milked it for all it was worth. I learned more about the way that government works than I ever could have through textbooks, and also learned about living an independent adult life and what it is like to move alone to an unfamiliar city. The last few months have influenced my ideas about the different kinds of job prospects that exist and what I may be interested in doing with my future.

Below is a list of things I learned/ advice I would bestow upon someone who is about to embark on a semester in D.C. Read it. Learn it. Live it...


A lot of people come to Washington, D.C. and get jaded, though there are ways to remain idealistic if you make an effort to.

Be prepared to meet/ live with people that are as passionate about you are about politics, but with views that are diametrically opposed to your own.

The media has the power to twist words in a way that can jeopardize people’s careers.

Members of Congress are (mostly) just normal people with a desire to serve their country.

Washington, D.C. feels like small town if you live there for more than a month.

Always wear comfortable shoes to work.

Try to get to know your colleagues outside the office; they can be unexpectedly fun to hang with.

Intern responsibilities often entail manual labor.

Without a good night’s sleep, a nine hour work day is excruciating.

Not everyone from Texas is a cowboy.

You can eat dinner for free every night at receptions.

District 9 has a lot of nutty constituents.

When sorting mail feels like it is getting old, just remember that there are probably several other people who would be willing to take your place.

Briefings are great oppritunities to get educated on current issues.

Go to the cornball events (Christmas tree lightings, election night parties, etc.), they make for good photo opportunities.

There are many cool parts of Washington, D.C. to explore (U Street, DuPont, Logan’s Circle, China Town), don’t just stay in "The Hill Bubble".

Get a Library of Congress Library card- resources there are endless and the buildings are beautiful.

The legislative branch is fueled by Starbucks.

Elevator lies.

I just rode in an elevator with Congressman Jack Murtha.

It being just the two of us, I figured I should say something:

"I just spent the past several weeks writing a paper about you, sir", is what came out of my mouth.

"Good things I hope", is what he replied.

I nodded, looked away, and turned bright red.
...I'm a lousy liar.

Khaled El-Masiri

This week I attended a briefing put on by the American Civil Liberties Union’s legislative policy division. The subject of this panel discussion was extraordinary rendition and the victim of a CIA kidnapping named Khaled El-Masri. This German citizen was kidnapped by the CIA while vacationing in Macedonia in 2003. He has come to the United States with his lawyer and is working with the ACLU to get acknowledgement, explanation and apology from the United States government.

El-Masri was kidnapped because he fits the racial and religious profile what the CIA considered a potential terrorist. Before his capturing, he had led a normal life with no criminal history. He worked at a car dealership and lived in the suburbs with his wife and children.

After being kidnapped by people dressed entirely in black with masks covering their faces, El-Masri was kept in a hotel for two weeks and questioned vigorously. He was then transported to a secret CIA prison in Afghanistan where Americans hold potential terrorists before shipping them to Guantanamo Bay. He was held in this prison in solitary confinement for five months, never even being informed who his captors were, or if he would ever get home. When the captors finally realized that he was innocent, they dropped him in the woods in Albania, with no passport, no food, and no money.

The victim spoke about how every single aspect of his life had changed since this episode. Because the authorities never contacted his family about what had happened, his friends and family had thought that he had either run away or been killed. When he went back to his home for the first time after the ordeal, he learned that family no longer lived there but had been forced to move back to Lebanon because could not afford to stay in Europe. He says that he is not mad at the American people, but will not be able to forgive the American government until they acknowledge their wrongdoing and offer an apology. The ACLU filed a lawsuit on his behalf against George Tenet, the former director of the CIA.

I was disturbed about the concept of extraordinary rendition and the secret prisons when I learned about it in the news when it was the media earlier this year. I acknowledge that actions such as this must be taken to ensure the safety of the American public. However, I also think that there must be some way to advance security without damaging blames people both physically and emotionally. Personally meeting a man who is victim of the practice, my horror and embarrassment over this policy has grown exponentially.

Erroneous rendition ruined this innocent man’s life. All he wants is an apology. Should he really have to sue to get it?

Final Paper Rough Draft: Case Study 3

Representative Foley and the House Page Scandal

The final case that I will explore is Representative Mark Foley’s most recent ethics scandal, which broke during my time working on the Hill. Representative Mark Foley resigned from the House of Representatives on September 29, 2006 after evidence emerged proving that he had engaged in inappropriate communications with House pages. These contacts included e-mails and online instant messages with under-age male teens, many of which were sexually explicit. Foley had also been witnessed drunk outside the page dormitory. This ethics scandal surfaced just weeks before the midterm election and is considered a significant factor in the overwhelming losses by the GOP.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert pushed the House Ethics Committee to work quickly to investigate the scandal. The committee focused on targeting House leaders who were allegedly notified about the e-mails, when they were told, and what actions they took when they had this knowledge. While the Speaker argues that he had no idea about the unethical behavior, both the media and public opinion polls called for his removal from office.

On October 5, 2006 the House Ethics Committee voted unanimously to “establish an Investigative Subcommittee regarding any conduct of House Members, officers and staff related to information concerning improper conduct involving Members and Current and Former Pages”. Congressman Ranking Minority Leader Howard Berman and Chairman Doc Hastings have stated that they will personally direct this investigation. Representatives Judy Biggert and Stephanie Tubbs Jones will serve with us on the subcommittee which will be assisted by a team of professional investigators.

Foley's former chief of staff, Kirk Fordham, testified before the ethics panel that, several years ago, he had told top republican aides (including Hastert's chief of staff, Scott Palmer) to intervene to stop Foley's inappropriate behavior. Palmer, however has claimed that this interaction never took place took place. The Ethics Committee is currently reviewing the case and continuing the investigation. They have also made steps to make adjustments to their page program to ensure such abuses do not continue.

During the investigation by the Ethics Committee, Representative Hastert also called on the Justice Department and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to conduct federal and state investigations into the scandal. Hastert claimed that additional investigations were necessary due to the “interstate communications that may have violated federal law”. With the addition of the Justice Department and the FBI in the investigation of this scandal, there are active external and internal inquires taking place to ensure Foley and anyone who knew about the inappropriate behavior is uncovered and punished.

Powerful Ideologies

Today I attended a lecture at the Library of Congress by Dr. Neil Smelser titled “Why Terrorists Ideologies Are So Powerful”. Smelser is a prominent sociologist, published author, Rhodes Scholar and professor emeritus at University of California, Berkley. His presentation went beyond the current debate about radical Islamic-inspired ideologies and covered extremist views in general that generate terrorist activities. He spoke about how ideologies are a unique mix of meaningful cultural change and a way of assigning responsibility and blame.

What I found most interesting is that the speaker did not differentiate between leftist and rightist ideologies, nor did he distinguish between religious and secular ones. By exploring terrorist ideologies as a general sociological phenomenon he investigated how society conceptualizes and ritualizes terrorist ideologies.

Smelser looked at ideologies from both a terrorist and anti-terrorist perspective. He said, “If you scratch an anarchist, you find a romantic” to illustrate his argument that in some ways, those individuals that succumb to terrorist actions are the same ones who most deeply desire peace and utopia. In this way, he argues, while powerful ideologies and extremist views can be dangerous, it is also this fever that ignites collective action and are thereby essential for social progress.

Final Paper Rough Draft: Case Study 1

Jack Murtha recently came back into the headlines when he was backed by speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi in the race for House Majority Leader against Steny Hoyer. In the week of the Democratic leadership elections, much attention in the media was drawn to the face that Murtha had been involved in an ethics scandal in the 1970s. Whether Murtha’s role in the ABSCAM scandal was the reason that he did not win the position is undecided, but the fact that this scandal is still playing a role in politics thirty years later demonstrates the longevity of the influence that alleged corruption can have on one’s political career.

In the ABSCAM probe was an FBI sting operation in the late 1970’s. In this operation agents posed as Saudi sheiks and offered members of Congress bribes for help in securing asylum in the United States and getting money out of Saudi Arabia. The sting operation resulted in the indictment of six Representatives and one Senator for charges of bribery. Jack Murtha was later named as an unindicted co-conspirator, which raises questions on why he was never investigated by the House Ethics Committee.

While Murtha did not accept the bribe itself, a 54 minute film recording of the exchange reveals Murtha telling the undercover FBI agents “You know, you made an offer. It might be that I change my mind someday…I want to deal with you guys awhile before I made any transactions at all.” Murtha ends the exchange with “After we’ve done some business, well, then I might change my mind. I’m going to tell you this. If anybody can do it- I’m not BSing you fellows- I can get it done my way. There’s no question about it.” This conversation displays Murtha declining the bribe money from the agents, but leaving the door open for future transactions.

The late columnist Jack Anderson labeled Murtha’s conduct as “perhaps the saddest scene on the secret ABSCAM videotapes. He refused to take the money, but his reason was hardly noble.” This brings into question what the Congressman’s rationalization may have been for implying that he might later decide to take the bribe. Murtha argued that his “only interest in the purported Saudi sheik’s money was that he hoped it would be invested in businesses in his district”. By arguing that he would have used the funds as an investment in the district, Murtha seemingly evaded indictment for his involvement with this scandal.

The most astonishing scandal did not take place in the ABSCAM probe itself, but the way that it was handled by the House Ethics Committee. In 1981 the Committee “became concerned that Murtha had, at a minimum, violated House rules that required he report any attempt at bribery”, which he had failed to do. Barrett Prettyman, a special prosecutor was assigned to oversee the investigation of the ABSCAM corruption. However, the investigation lead Prettyman to members beyond the six Representatives who had been originally charged. Congressmen such as the Speaker of the House, Thomas P. (Tip) O'Neill Jr., and Representative Jack Murtha were named in the investigation, which is when that is when the inquiry became dishonest.

Speaker O’Neill called on Representative Charlie Wilson of Texas to join the Ethics Committee amidst this investigation. Wilson agreed to the appointment in exchange for a lifetime seat on the board of the Kennedy Center of performing Arts, a position that Wilson had desired for years. Wilson accepted the terms of this arrangement which was contingent upon Wilson’s agreement to “take care” of the investigation of O’Neill and Murtha’s involvement in ABSCAM. The arrangement worked out for both parties. Wilson got his coveted seat on the Kennedy Center board, and soon after his arrival on the Ethics Committee the case against Murtha was dismissed.

Final Paper Rough: Introduction

Political analysts, scholars and politicians overwhelmingly agreed that a citizen’s attitude toward the war in Iraq would be the key factor in determining how citizens would vote in November’s midterm election. But the experts were mistaken.

Exit polls expressed that one issue by and large swayed the way that citizens voted: Ethics. Recent scandal in Congress has caused public distrust in government to grow exponentially. “When asked which issue was extremely important to their vote, more voters said corruption and ethics in government than any other issue”. Trust in government currently sits at a near all time low. Only 23% of American citizens now believe that Congress can be trusted. The lack of trust in the government is clearly a significant variable in the outcome of the recent elections, and one reason for the startling shift in both the Senate and House majority parties.

According to recent polls, people feel deceived by the government. They feel that there is a lack of oversight and accountability for member’s actions. After working as a congressional intern for the past few months, these criticisms have come to the forefront of my thoughts a well. While the federal employees who I come into contact with on a daily basis seem exceptionally trustworthy and selfless, the question of how there is still so much misbehavior at this high level of authority continues to perplex me. Why is it that a body as powerful as the United States Congress does not have external regulation? What progress could be made in order to make members of Congress more accountable for their actions?

In this paper I will investigate will look at what the relationship is between power and accountability in institutions. I hypothesize that the House of Representatives will continue have instances of ethical misconduct until there is an external body to regulate their authority and conduct. I will identify three major ethical scandals involving members of the United States House of Representatives and examine the process that was used to investigate and address them. I will first look at the ABSCAM probe in the 1970s involving Representative Jack Murtha. I will then study Representative Bob Ney’s involvement in the Abramoff lobbying scandal. Finally, I will look at the recent allegations of Representative Mark Foley. I chose these three case studies in order to compare three contrasting instances of Congressional misconduct in the House of Representatives that were each handled differently by the House Ethics Committee. Each of the three case studies was handled by the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct in a different manner, and thus each impacted Congressional ethics regulation in a unique way.

Through the identification of historical and current examples of ethical misconduct in Congress, I hope to form a strategy for what can be done to prevent and control these problems. While this paper considers cases specific to Congress, I hope to address the problem of the correlation between power and corruption on a wider scale and explore solutions to easing popular distrust trust in power. Only when a dependable and standardized system of regulation for authority exists will public faith in government finally increase, which is a fundamental mark of a thriving democracy.

Thanksgiving Treat from a Constituent

I am not easily infuriated. But Tomorrow is Thanksgiving. Instead of being at Grandma’s house, I am sitting in the office and sorting mail. To be honest, that fact alone isn’t my complaint- my real problem is with the letter that we just received from a constituent. All I want to think about right now is happy families and pumpkin pie. Instead I have to sit here and try to find a way to politely respond to this man who insulted almost every political and moral value that I hold. This job is teaching me a lot of things, and the lesson that I’m learning today is how to harness my frustration and be courteous to those who I find truly offensive.

Dear Representative Smith:

My personal opinion regarding these issues is:
human cloning should be banned--

gay marriage rights are wrong--gay people are sick--emotionally unstable,
and should not be granted rights that apply to a man and a woman's union.

This nation was founded as "One Nation, Under God" and must remain that
way--we must preserve the rights of the 85% of Americans who live for god
and not the 15% who want to trample on our rights.

Women need to know what horror takes place in an abortion---the long term effects
on them emotionally and physically.

let's get back to "right is right and wrong is wrong"---America--love it
or leave it--if you want to live in the US, you must be able to speak
English, take an oath, and abide by our laws--or get out! NO flag flies in
place of the Stars and Stripes--if you want to burn our flag--go ahead,
and we'll burn you---


Sincerely,
(A Constituent)

Research Paper Rough: Ethics Committee Origins

When studying ethics and the House of Representatives, it is necessary to look at the origins of congressional ethics enforcement. “The authority of congress to discipline its member is found in Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution, which states in part that “Each House may determine the Rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.” While these regulations have been in place throughout the history of the nation, it is only within the past half century that Congress has taken serious measures to try to ensure that Members are truly held accountable for ethical wrongdoings.

A wave of criticism swept Washington in the 1950s, with analysts, the public and some Members themselves calling for a system to be put in place to regulate congressional misconduct. In 1958, congress adopted a 10-point general code of Ethics for Government officials and Employees”. These standards were not legally binding, and publicly considered more of suggestions rather than legally binding law. By the 1960’s concerns over Congressional standards of conducts had reached a tipping point, and in the wake of a series of ethical allegations against Senate Members interest was spurred in the creation of a new and worthy system for internal oversight.

In the 1960’s, Congress finally established a self-regulating body in an attempt to clean up its behavior and reputation. The Senate Select Committee on Standards and Conduct was formed in 1964, and the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct was formed three years later. Prior to the formation of these two internal regulatory bodies, there was essentially no procedural way to regulate or punish ethical problems plaguing Congress. While Members were expected to follow an “informal” code of conduct, it was largely inconstant and thus did little to address the problems of liability in the federal government.

Congressional Ethics Committees has xperienced many transformations in the decades following its creation. Internal and public criticism has brought into light the need for ethics reform in Congree. While ethical oversight Committees have commonly been labeled “watchdogs without teeth”, they have also made significant strides in recognizing and amending problems within the legislative branch.

Second Amendment Rights Update

Occasionally our office is inundated with letters from constituents on one specific bill. Other times, we will get numerous letters about one issue, but referring to various different bills. Lately, we have been getting tons of letters in support of Second Amendment Rights. In some cases we have received three or four pro-gun letters from the same person, each one referring to several different initiatives. In order avoid dedicating every second of every day to responding to each of these letters individually, I was asked to create a “Pro-Gun Update” to be sent to constituents who have written in throughout the past couple of months in support of Second Amendment Rights. Here is a rough copy of what I have written that will shortly be sent out to nearly two hundred District 9 constituents:

Thank you for contacting me with your support of Second Amendment Rights. I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts on this issue.

Many votes concerning the Second Amendment have come to the floor of the House of Representatives during in the 109th Congress, and I would like to take a moment to let you know about a few that I have helped to pass.

The Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act, H.R. 5013 was introduced by Representative Bobby Jindal, which passed the House with a vote of 322 to 99 on July 25, 2006. Rep. Jindal's bill prohibits any agency using federal disaster relief funds from seizing firearms from law-abiding citizens in their cars, homes, and businesses. I voted in favor of this bill because I saw it as a final affirmation that in times of disaster you cannot throw out the Second Amendment guarantee the right of the people to keep and bear arms. H.R. 5013 was passed in the House and has been referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

I also supported the House-passed Secure Access to Justice and Court Protection Act of 2005, H.R. 1751. This bill amends the federal criminal code to increase penalties for assaulting, kidnapping, murdering, attempting or conspiring to kidnap or murder, or threatening to assault, kidnap, or murder a U.S. official or employee, a federal judge or law enforcement officer, or an immediate family member of such an individual. I voted in support of amending this bill to include a provision that would authorize any federal judge, magistrate, U.S. Attorney, or any DOJ officer who represents the United States in a court of law to carry firearms. I was happy to see this bill was passed 375 - 45.

For your knowledge, during the 108th Congress there was language added to the 2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act which prohibited the collection of any fee for firearms-related background checks made through NICS. Additional language, regarding the retention of approved firearm transfer records, was added to this provision as part of an amendment offered by Representative Tiahrt during a House Appropriations Committee markup of the Commerce Justice State (CJS) appropriations bill, H.R. 2799. This additional language would have required the FBI to destroy approved firearm background check records immediately. The final language that was included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 required these records be destroyed within 24 hours. Similar language has been included in the House-passed and Senate-reported versions of the FY 2007 Science, State, Justice, and Commerce Appropriations bill, H.R. 5672. This provision prohibits the establishment of any electronic registry of firearms, firearm owners, or approved firearm transactions or dispositions.

Under the Firearms and Modernization Act of 2006, H.R. 1384, individuals can buy handguns, as well as rifles or shotguns, from licensed dealers in another state, subject to the background check requirement. The buyer and dealer would still have to meet in person and comply with the laws of both states. After a mark-up session by the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, this bill was forwarded to the full House Judiciary Committee by voice vote.

Another bill that has been introduced is the “Firearms Corrections and Improvements Act of 2006, HR 5005. This bill will permanently ban taxes or “user fees” on background checks by the federal instant check system-fees that Congress has prohibited in annual appropriations riders since 1998. Additionally, it will ban creation of a centralized electronic index of dealers’ records-a threat to gun owners’ privacy that Congress has barred through appropriations riders for a decade. This bill now sits in the House Judiciary Committee and is ordered to be reported by the yeas and nays vote.

In addition, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) Modernization and Reform Act of 2006 has also been introduced. This bill revises the system of administrative penalties for licensed dealers, manufacturers and importers of firearms. It also would allow fines or license suspensions for less serious violations, while allowing license revocation for the kind of serious violations that would block an investigation or put guns in the hands of criminals.

I hope that I have adequately addressed your concerns about Second Amendment Rights. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that these bills will be coming to the House floor for a vote as the 109th Congress set to adjourn in the next few weeks. With that said, please know that I will continue to take your thoughts and concerns into consideration before I take any vote that would restrict these rights.

Again, thank you for contacting me in support of Second Amendment Rights. If you have any additional questions, comments, or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me again.

Intern for Rent

I never knew that interns could be "lent" to other offices. Turns out we can be. Did it make me feel like a piece of property? Perhaps a little. But that is simply a fate I was more than willing to accept in the name of Representative Steny Hoyer's professional ambitions.

This week was the House Leadership election. With the potentially close race between Hoyer and Murtha for House Majority leader, tensions were high between democrat members of the House. Adam was a strong supporter Hoyer from the start. In a lot of ways, they mirror each other's centrist values and “no bullshit” approach to politics. Adam was one of the few members to be outwardly vocal of his support for Hoyer in the media (thus perpetuating Pelosi’s distaste for him, might I add). When Hoyer’s office called and requested extra help for his leadership campaign, was quick to offer my assistance.

I was instructed to go to the Minority Whips office early on Tuesday morning. This was heavily guarded office located in a private upstairs wing of the Capitol Building itself. His office was large and extravagant, and the staff there was clearly two or three times the size of a normal House office staff. Upon my arrival, they handed me a stack of hand written letters in envelopes addressed to various Congressmen, which I was instructed to go office to office and make certain that it ended up in the hands of each Representative personally.

Well, three hours and about 50 envelopes later, I had accomplished my mission. My feet were sore and my fingers plagued with paper cuts. These ailments were a small price to pay, for the next morning Hoyer won the position of Majority Leader over Murtha by a large margin. I’m quite certain it was my unparalleled envelope delivery expertise that did it.

Assignment 10

Risk and Blame
Essays in Cultural Theory

By Mary Douglas

This collection of works by Mary Douglas delves into the scholarly study and practical application of history, politics, and economics from an anthropological standpoint in order to launch an overarching complaint against the modern “inhospitality” of social sciences. She criticizes the fragmented organization of academia, and projects that in the coming decades there will be a strong movement towards the unification of these areas of study. Douglas asserts it will not be until experts start crossing scholarly boundaries that society will be able to fully benefit from the endeavors of social scientists.

Risk is a major theme represented in Douglas’s essays. She discusses the prominent role of risk in politics and its influence on the formation of public policy. She examines the background of how danger is manipulated as a political tool. With regard to politicizing risk, Douglas finds that, “risk analysis that tries to exclude moral ideas and politics from its calculations is putting professional integrity before sense”. Knowledge of potential vulnerability is a modern source of extreme power. The idea that governments and organizations are assessing risk and acting on these threats is a significant factor for keeping sanity and order amongst the population at large.

Blame is a factor that works and in hand with the politicizing of risk to shape legislation. Throughout our nation’s history, blame has been used when attempting to identify and combat societal ills. Using examples such as the witch-hunt and leprosy epidemics, the author analyzes how blame acts as a way to assign a minority group fault in order to rally citizens in the name of change. By looking to ways in which people have been rejected through fear of risk, it illustrates why blame can be directly correlated with political marginalization and social discrimination against various factions in our culture.

Another idea that is examined extensively in this collection is the idea of ‘the self’. This concept is central to all fields of the social sciences, but perceived and operated in divergent manners. The idea of the self is vital to the study of cultural anthropology and politics as much as it is significant to psychology. Cultural theory is characterized as “a way of thinking about culture that draws the social environment systematically into the picture of individual choices”. By looking at an international range of how the self is perceived within different spheres of the social sciences, the author claims that we can begin to deconstruct the barriers currently keep these disciplines so strictly segregated.

Douglas firmly believes that in order to make academic and social progress, it is necessary for increased communication between academic disciplines. Furthermore, in a world of ever growing globalization and cultural diffusion, it is necessary to encourage contact between international organizations and institutions. When this “radical overhaul” of social sciences occurs, it will then be possible to fully examine and advance understanding of human action.

Anyone who has ever picked up a newspaper or turned on a television has observed the power of risk and blame in modern American society. Most if not all of the legislation that has come to the floor during my time here has had been in some way related to fear. Government issues ranging from the bird flu, stem cell research, immigration and terrorism all deal with assessment of risk. Fear and risk was also an evident theme in the campaigns of this year’s midterm elections. It is apparent that while genuinely working to ease these risks, our culture has inadvertently accepted the power of risk and blame as the prevailing means to generating a solution.

Peace-Out Rummy

The day after the midterm election, everyone was still completely focused on the congressional races and waiting with baited breath to learn the fate of the Senate. This is why it came out of nowhere when we learned that Donald Rumsfeld announced his resignation. On this specific day, I had been invited by a friend to a free event for George Washington University students called “Donald Rumsfeld: Man of War”. The event, hosted by the GW School of Media and Pubic Affairs, was a special screening of a CNN documentary followed by a panelist discussion regarding Rumsfeld. It was opportunity that I could not refuse.

The host of the event was Frank Sesno, a professor of media and public affairs at the GWU and a special correspondent for CNN. Sesno is the journalist who produced the documentary, and prefaced the screening with his reasoning for focusing on Rumsfeld and what he hoped it would accomplish. It delved into Rumsfeld’s past as well as had footage of interviews about personal motives and feelings about the War in Iraq. The other panelists included David Sanger, the New York Times White House Correspondent, and a retired U.S. Army General, John Batiste. It was fascinating to listen to these very different first hand accounts of the former Secretary of Defense. General Batiste was commander of the First Infantry Division in Iraq from 2003 to 2004 and strongly criticized the planning and execution of the War in Iraq and Rumsfeld’s leadership. Sanger provided a critical portrayal of the Administration and touched on the role of the media in raising public awareness about Rumsfeld’s alleged incompetence.

Believe it or not, it was entirely coincidental that this event was being help on the day of Rumsfeld’s resignation. It had been planned for weeks, but the timing could not have been more fitting. Amidst the flood of significant political changes that have occurred in the past few days, I was thankful to be able to sit back and get a sense of what all of these developments might actually change.

Election Day

I have come to the conclusion that being in D.C. on election day is in many ways comparable to being in New York City for New Years Eve. However, instead of watching a ball drop, people watch CNN and instead of celebrating a New year, people celebrate the democratic process. Regardless of these small differences, one major aspect remains the unchanged: whole city basically shuts down to party.

It was not until about 7pm when returns starting coming in. Our office hosted an informal gathering in Smith’s office, inviting some colleagues from different offices and our close (democrat) friends. We had all of the TVs on different channels and all of our computers monitoring returns on various websites. Every time a dem won we cheered and danced. Needless to say, there was cheering and dancing a-plenty. By 2am we were itching to get out of the office and decided to venture down the street to see what going on.

The bars and restaurants on Capital Hill are considered “D.C. Institutions” in many cases. What I observed on election night at some of these places will live on as some of the amusing and most bizarre situations that I have experienced in my time here. At each place, there were dozens of TVs tuned in to MSNBC, CNN and FOX News and on maximum volume . The rowdy customers were howling at the news anchors. There were bursts of joyful cheering and echoes of deep frustration every time another race was called. The evening culminated upon witnessing two businessmen get in a fistfight (and subsequently kicked out) after a debate over the Webb/ Allen race turned violent.

I returned to my townhouse at 4 am, reveling in the democrat victory of the House and somehow completely content with the fact that I would have to wake up in 3 hours to go to work again.

Internship Summary (thus far...)

O’Neil: Here is the write-up you requested. Please feel free to edit it before you post it, and let me know if you would like me to make any content changes.

Last night I had trouble sleeping. It was because that butterflies-in-the-stomach eagerness comparable to the feeling you get as a kid on Christmas Eve or the first day of school. From what I know, this specific reaction to the approaching midterm elections is not common. But let’s face it, I’m not normal. I’m a politics nerd. This is why I decided to spend the semester in D.C.

While most of my buddies at U.P.S. were choosing where in Europe they would spend the fall semester partying, I was itching to do something (or at least partying somewhere) a little different. I found an internship in the office of Representative Adam Smith from Washington’s ninth Congressional district. I organized housing with the Washington Student Intern Housing program, through which I was assigned a place in a townhouse with eight other interns, just two blocks from the Capitol building. After designing an independent study course with Professor O’Neil, I moved out east in late August.

I work as Representative Smith’s only fulltime D.C. intern. My duties include legislative research, writing memos, responding to constituent mail and calls, attending briefings and giving Capitol tours. I have developed close relationships with Smith’s legislative staff as well as the Congressman himself, all individuals who are exceptionally accessible unbelievable committed to the citizens of Washington State. Some of the perks of the job include the day-to-day contact with policy-makers, access to Congressional resources, the social functions and the up-close observation of the midterm elections. While the internship has been exhausting and daunting at times, it has also proven to be thoroughly educational and ridiculously fun.

Interning in Congress has transformed and clarified my initial ideas about what I do, and do not want to do with my future. It has provided me with a unique perspective of the American political system, and unquestionably benefited my education as a whole. This experience has reinforced my love for politics and given me the opportunity to meet remarkable people. Best of all, I have learned America’s Capital is an entire city of politics nerds, just like me.

Assignment 9

Religion Returns to the Public Square
Faith and Policy in America

Edited by Hugh Heclo and Wilfred McClay

This collection of essays examines the complex and tangled relationship between public policy and religion. The overall theme of this book is that religion has never faded as a central variable in the equation of policy making. The separation of church and state has been a long-standing subject of scrutiny and tension for factions of the American populous. The enduring argument of this book is that religion and politics “are distinct but not separate” entities. These fields intersect so sharply, because they share a common goal of trying to best answer the fundamental philosophical questions about how people should live.

The prominence of religion in the ‘public square’ has undergone a waxing and waning pattern throughout the nation’s political history. Religion remains a significant influence on the making of policy today. Religion has played a major role in shaping social policy and government funded welfare and educational programs. This book not only inspects the origins and history of the role of religion of in the political sphere, but also looks at the current policy developments to analyze the way impact of increasing religious pluralism on the American political climate.

E.J. Dionne Jr. purposes that in order for religion to be evaluated within the context of politics, it must first and foremost be taken seriously. Once looked at though a critical lens, it becomes clear that religion is public by its very nature. The author suggests that religion can be looked at in two ways. First, it can be seen as a tradition of what is believed to be fair and moral, which can then be applied to society and justice as a whole. Another way to look at religion is a group who does what they can ensure that their members and traditions survive and grow.

The nation’s religious political history is broken down into three sections or phases. The first is labeled the age of white Protestant hegemony, which influenced the government’s creation and organization in many ways. The second phase came to its peak in the twentieth century and can be characterized as a strong public push towards strict political secularism. This second stage involved the election of a Catholic president, the liberalization of immigration laws (which resulted in greater national religious diversity), and the banning of prayer in schools.

We have recently transitioned into what is considered the third religious political phase. This book offers evidence that there has been a failed attempt at marginalizing the role of religion in politics. It has reemerged as a political influence in the twenty-first century with more clout and exposure than ever. This passionate resurfacing of Protest Christianity’s public position can be linked to a backlash against the major social changes that occurred in the latter half of the twentieth century and entirely changed the face of American culture. The Moral Majority and Christian Coalition have gained support in their push for a conservative movement.

Many bills have recently been introduced in Congress pertaining to religion. While some see these initiatives as a way to give one religion more influence and priority in government affairs over others, many argue that these measures would serve only to expand our personal liberties. The idea is suggested that as citizens we must be allowed freedom of speech, association and worship, and that the politicizing of religion is only a manifestation of this constitutional right. The author asserts that those who "call for taking religion’s public role seriously is rooted in democratic republicanism, not theocracy" and that it will not damage our civil liberties, but enhance them.


During my time here, I have received and responded to many constituent letters regarding the issue of religion. The Public Expression of Religion Act (PERA) has been a bill that has people up in arms on both sides of the issue. Religion comes into play in constituent’s feelings about the War in Iraq, with many conscientious objectors writing in about their moral opposition to paying taxes that go to funding war. I have seen first hand that religion plays a significant role in policymaking and argue that it is a political issue capable of igniting intense passion and controversy between constituents and policymakers alike.

I saw the sign.

Last night I went with a group of friends to a concert in Fairfax, Virginia. As we drove down the highway, I grew quiet and pensive looking out the window. When my friend turned to me and inquired what I was thinking about so gravely, my answer was simple: yard signs.

Working on Cantwell’s Senate campaign last summer, I put up my fair share of yard signs. However, the amount of signs lining the highways, streets and yards of Virginia right now is nothing if not absurd. Virginia’s Allen vs. Webb Senate race is one of the most hotly contested congressional races in the country. I’ve observed the influx of TV ads and read about it in all of the papers. But I never would have guessed that one yard, let alone an entire state could be as blanketed in campaign signs as Virginia is right now.

There were petite strips of grass on the sides of the roads that could not have had less than thirty "Vote Allen" signs literally crammed into every inch of grass or dirt. The Allen signs far outnumbered the Webb ones, but both were highly visible in a colorful and chaotic pattern of colors and names. The sheer abundance of these simple campaign tools made me fixate on the nature and history of the political yard sign…Where are all of these signs manufactured? Who designs them? Is there a science to determining the color and font used? Why does Allen have significantly more signs? Does it indicate that he has a stronger campaign overall? Or maybe that he’s behind in the polls? How effective could yard signs actually be in the overall campaign? Has anyone actually made their voting decision based solely on a yard sign? Where are the most influential places to put yard signs? What in heavens name are they going to do with these hundreds of thousands of signs in three days time?

The elections better come soon...I need something more important than yard signs to occupy my thoughts.

Well done Smithers.

On Friday Adam did a live interview on MSNBC. Because Adam is on the House Armed Services committee, the subject of the interview was the War in Iraq. The entire staff of his office gathered in his office where there is a big TV. As we sat around waiting, people were excited and nervous. Our press guy was blackberry-ing like crazy, making sure that Adam would get to the studio on time. Our legislative staffer on foreign relations and military affairs, Mark, scrambled to gather the latest statistics on the War in Iraq so that he could give Adam one final briefing.

Adam was suddenly on the screen, looking serious and important. His counter part on the program was a conservative political analyst. The journalist quickly began to shoot questions at both of the men regarding the War and its strategy. Adam stayed calm but passionately voiced his stance on the issues. Throughout the debate Adam appeared substantially more collected and articulate than his counterpart. The best part is that Adam got the last word, a strong statement about a ‘new direction’ in our Iraq strategy. As the other guy struggled to get his words together to refute him, he was cut off by the moderator. Adam absolutely smoked ‘em. We high-fived.

Press Catastrophe

I recently witnessed what could only be described as a “press catastrophe”. Last Friday the Baltimore Sun included an article entitled “Tough Style of Leadership”. This article was about Rep. Nancy Pelosi and the potential future as Speaker of the House of Representatives. The story characterized Pelosi’s childhood, personal life and political history and offered insights about how she might perform were she to be elected to this new position. Beyond presenting quotations from Nancy’s staff and allies, the article also included the opinions of those who do not believe the Nancy should be made Speaker.

To our surprise (and Derrick, the Director of Communications great dismay), the journalist took a clip from an interview that she had done with Adam a couple of weeks ago and skewed his words to make him sound like he was adamantly opposed to seeing Pelosi as Speaker and they are essentially enemies. This was not only twisting of words, but a complete and utter fabrication. We hands a press nightmare on our hands because at it is important for Democrats to show solidarity this close to the elections, not to mention it is not wise to offend the colleague that will possibly be your party’s upcoming Speaker. As I watched Derrick have a near nervous breakdown, it made me realize just how much the media can warp and manipulate information- and the profound impact that it can have on political careers.

Link to the Article (The part about Adam half way down the second page):
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.pelosi27oct27,0,7200050.story?coll=bal-home-headlines

Lunch with Cook

I was invited to a Congressional luncheon hosted by Charlie Cook, one of the most prominent analysts of the Washington political scene. He spoke about the elections and made speculations about this November's elections. He started talking about the political climate in the nation as a whole. He then focused on the House race and discussed many of the individual elections specifically. I was stunned to hear him hypothesize that the Democrats could take "upwards of 20...30...40 seats in the House" this election year. When describing some of the candidates, he used humorous insights and vivid metaphors to illustrate his points. Some of my favorites include describing George Allen as a boxer who had gotten punched several times but was still standing and needed only a raindrop to land on him for him to hit the floor. Cook not only had the intelligence to provide the audience with some profound insight on the upcoming elections, but added humor in such a way that it made what might have just another analyst's tedious predictions into a standup comedy routine that had staffers of both parties laughing at each other and even themselves.

Assignment 8

The Future of Freedom:
Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad
By Fareed Zakaria

The future of Freedom is overflowing with surprising facts about, ideas that I see as essential concepts for an inclusive understanding of politics and society. For instance, he reveals that in 1900 there was not a single democracy in existence (if one were to define democracy as a government created by elections in which every adult citizen could vote). He goes on to explain that today there are 119 democracies, which comprises 62% of the nations in the world. Zakaria uses these details to illustrate the rapid growth of modern democracy in the world over the last century thus setting up his audience for one of his primary theses, that “over the last century the world has been shaped by one trend above all others- the rise of democracy.

After describing the ancient origins of democracy and the evolution of this philosophy, Zakaria discusses its current status. One of the things that he believes is shifting democracy today is technological advancements. The internet in particular is proving to be hugely influential on democratization because of the endless access to information and ideas that it allows. He characterizes the web as an arena in which “everyone is connected but non one is in control”, where anyone can find the recipe for anthrax as easily as the recipe for lasagna. This lack of structural control over information is leading to changes in social, economic and political spheres and in is therefore shifting the identity of democratic systems as well.

“The Age of Terror” is the name that the author gives the current political climate in America. This terror is based on tensions between the state, and the “forces that drive the democratization of authority”. The subsequent conflicts that rise from these tensions includes an ever-decreasing popular trust in the establishment. Though we have a government that is the poster-child of the constitutional liberalism that we strive to spread around the world, at home Americans have lower regard for their political system that ever before (I believe today the approval rating of Congress sits at a near all-time low of 16%). In fact, this resounding disapproval of government is not exclusive to America. This book notes that there is a current pattern of increased ‘anti-establishment populism’ in most Western countries. Zakaria resolves that modern democratic governments have become dysfunctional in many respects, and must be amended in order to regain public confidence.

Liberty is an integral concept at the very core of democracy, though at this day in age, the significance of liberty is often forgotten. Zakaria identifies the “liberal democracy” of the West “marked by free and fair elections and the rule of law, a separation of powers, and the protection of basic liberties of speech, assembly, religion, and property. He contrasts this kind of democracy with the so-called democratic regimes that “have been re-elected or reaffirmed through referenda, are routinely ignoring constitutional limits on their power and depriving their citizens of basic rights”. Ghana, Venezuela, Peru and the Palestinian territories are given as examples of ‘illiberal’ democracies.

The author notes that constitutional liberalism and democracy are not mutually exclusive. Though the convergence of democracy and liberty in the West is assumed, it does not always hold true. It is observed that Hitler was in fact elected the chancellor by means of fair elections. Zakaria argues that today, there is a growing separation between the ideals of democracy and liberty. He sees that while democracy is flourishing, liberty is weakening in democracies around the world.

The current war in Iraq can be considered a test for the ability to spread democracy in a modern world that faces new variables such as technology, terrorism and globalization. Zakaria sees America’s goal of bringing democracy to Iraq as a worthwhile and respectable endeavor. He concludes that this will be a long and strenuous process, especially because (with the exception of Norway) most of the world’s oil states have dictatorship regimes. When nations are rich in natural resources such as oil, they need not depend as much on other means of economic development and so capitalism is harder to endure in these regions. Another historical aspect is the widely reported religious and ethnic divisions that cause conflict between the citizens of this democracy-to-be.

The authors estimate about the future of Iraq are most optimistic than my personal forecast. He believes that democracy has a high probability of taking root in Iraq, though it will take some time and peacekeeping forces will have to remain in Iraq for years to come. After learning of the death rates on both sides of the conflict in Iraq this month, I am not as confident in the success of democracy there. However, I do firmly support Zakaria’s assertion that we must understand the historical motivations for the development of liberal democracy, if we hope to spread it to other parts of the world. I similarly agree that although democracy is flawed in many ways, it undoubtedly represents the “last best hope” for social progress and liberty around the world.

Research Paper Free Write 3

Has Congress displayed that is can effectively provide oversight of itself? What are the problems associated with internal supervision? Most other agencies/ businesses/ organizations have external bodies that regulate them (banks-federal reserve, com networks-FCC, etc.). Is there an increased tolerance for abuse with self regulation? Does the Ethics Committee do enough to identify and amend these abuses? What kinds of problems have there been in Congress (case studies: Foley, Jefferson, Nay etc.) Why does Congress keep giving themselves pay rates but spending fewer days in session? Why, then won’t they pass minimum wage increases? How has the lenient punishments for Congressional scandals (bribing, indecent sexual behavior, discrimination) affected public support of government? What progress could be made in order to make members of Congress more accountable for their actions?

I think I like this one best. Thoughts?

Research Paper Free Write 2

Right now more than 50% of all Americans believe most members of Congress are corrupt. What is playing a bigger role in this disapproval? The War in Iraq? The Scandals? Immigration? Another factor entirely? What variables have made it this low in the past? How could the government improve the popular approval of congress? What happens to the people who disapprove of government? Do they switch political parties? Do they just sit at home and not participate? What are the patterns of constituents contacting lawmakers? What are the issues have, overtime, remained the most salient when if comes to contacting elected officials? Have rates of this kind of political participation changed over time? How do they differ between demographic (age group, geographic location, etc.)? How have recent developments in technology affected the means/ rates of constituent opinion expression?

Research Paper Free Write 1

Is there a relationship between the approval rating and the effectiveness of Congress? Is the low approval rating a cause or consequence of the effectiveness of a given Congressional session? Is it not a factor at all? How does public opinion of government play into elected officials and their staff's opinion of the job that they do? How does an isolated political scandal affect the popular perception of government as a whole? How does it affect partisanship? If x party has a scandal, does party membership strengthen (rally together to fight the criticism) or lead to a weakening in party identification?

Assignment 7

Exit Voice and Loyalty
Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states
By Albert O. Hirschman

The author sees competition as the driving force behind the livelihood and successes of firms and organizations. While economists generally argue that discontent with an organization results in decline in demand, political scientists would likely consider the objection that would be expressed from members of the organization. The author asserts that both the economist path of “exit” and the political science route of “voice” as equally viable options when faced with organizational discontent or customer criticism.

There are two main options when it comes to identifying the deterioration in performance in a firm or organization. Hirschman describes two major paths that can be taken when such deterioration occurs. The first is the “exit” option. This option can be characterized as the resulting effect of customers no longer buying a certain product or a number of members deciding to leave an organization. The consequence of this decline in consumption or participation is that the leadership of this firm or organization is forced to look for ways to understand and fix the problems that have resulted in this exit in the first place.

The alternative path, Hirschman labels the “voice” option. This process occurs when an organization’s members or a business’s customers have dissatisfaction with a product or system and react by expressing their opinions to management. The leadership may then search for the origin of their customers’ dissatisfaction and can then work to improve the quality of product or conditions of the organization appropriately.

While each route has been studies and tested by experts in different academic areas, Hirschman helps the reader understand both perspectives and, reveals how they might be used together. When looking and voice vs. exit with in the framework of American ideology, it becomes clear that Americans live in a historically “exit-ist” culture. Hirschmen encourages us to look back at our history, to the pilgrims who fled to America from Europe as a way to escape religious persecution. The pilgrims’ choice to leave Europe was a free choice to exit a society that did not accept their morals. We his phenomenon again when religious groups of Americans made their way West to cultivate the frontier, as a place to freely practice their faith without the obstruction or interference of others. These factions of American citizens had the option of remaining in their native lands and voice their beliefs in hopes of changing the political or ideological structure from within. By looking towards physical flight as a method to avoid the “messiness and heartbreak” of voice, it becomes understandable how Americans’ propensity towards exit has been habitually ingrained in our cultural identity.

Hirschmen asserts that there must be the existence of specific conditions in order to achieve an effectual blend of exit and voice. The organization or firm that can be altered but both exit and voice has to have exposure to each of these routes. The theories and observations described in this book can be applied to politics and voting in a number of ways. One could look at political participation as a choice to either voice or exit. While exit can achieve substantial changes in rooted in business or organizational dissatisfaction, it nearly does not have the same effect when it comes to American politics. Within the context of a democracy, voicing one’s opinions or attitudes, whether through the action of voting or otherwise, is the sole vehicle for change. Constituents can express their views on a party or candidate through voice, and I’ve observed firsthand the weight that citizen’s voices can have on a member of Congress’s decision process. Thus we can see that any given organization’s perception of customer or member unhappiness can be more or less responsive to exit or voice. While numerous events in American history illustrate a tendency towards exit as a road towards contentment, the conditions of a democracy depend on the voice of the most passionately dissatisfied in order to create an improved situation for all citizens.

The Priest

Perhaps the most interesting individual that I met this week works just a few doors down from me. This man is in his mid-thirties and, and after we started talking in the hall, revealed that he spent time after college working for a non-profit in Minnesota. What I later found out was that the “non-profit organization” to which he was referring was actually the Catholic Church, and the “work” he was doing was actually serving in the priesthood.

This very interesting man was a priest from Minnesota on sabbatical. He explained that a couple of years ago he got a vision that he should come to Washington and work for the federal government. He was doing so because he felt that he could essentially help more people working in the federal government than by what he had been doing for the public good while in the priesthood. I don’t believe that I have ever known a priest very well, let alone one working in Congress. I look forward to hopefully getting the cance to gain insight into how his deep religious faith plays into his current political views.

The Activist

On Tuesday I gave a Capitol tour to a woman and her husband from Washington State. The woman kept referring to doing work here in D.C., and the many times that she had been here on business trips. When I inquired as to what she did, she went on to explain that her sister was Rachel Corrie, the 23 year old college student from Olympia who was killed by an Israeli bulldozer while protesting its use to destroy Palestinian houses in Rafah.

Rachel had been in the Middle East working with the Palestinian-led International Solidarity Movement to protest Israeli actions in the occupied territories. Since the death of her sister, this woman had dedicated her life to lobbying Congress for investigation into this murder as well as furthering peace in the Middle East. Despite having been through the grief of her sister’s tragic death, she was so positive and kind, and is now doing everything in her power to change foreign policy to further her sister’s desire for international solidarity.

The General

I was sitting at my desk in the office and a pack of men in pristine green uniforms came through the door. I made small talk with them until our Chief of Staff was ready for their meeting. What I learned afterward, was that the man who had introduced himself to me as Dubik, was actually LTG James M. Dubik, the current Commanding General of Fort Lewis.

It was hard to imagine that such a warm and gentle man could be in charge of a one of the largest military reservations in the country. This was the guy to blame for all of those military planes that fly over campus at inopportune moments (namely during exams when we’re trying to concentrate or in the mornings when I’m still sleeping). He seemed so kind and grandfatherly, not like I would have expected a prominent military official to be at all. He told me that if I ever find myself at Fort Lewis, that I should look him up and he would show me around.

A Cast of Characters

This past Monday was Columbus Day so it was only a four day work-week for federal employees. The combination of the shortened week and the fact that we were in recess meant that nothing especially “blog-worthy” happened in my internship. After worrying about my possible lack of material, I decided to use this week to focus on the best part of my internship: the people. The following three entries are about unique and fascinating people that I met this week.

Assignment 6

The Logic of Collective Action:
Public Goods and the Theory of Groups
By Mancur Olson

The study of collective action and organizational problems are not only significant in the study of political science, but also heavily influence the academic spheres of sociology, psychology and economics. Olsen looks to debunk the common misconception that “groups of individuals with common interests are expected to act on behalf of their common interests much as single individuals are expected to act on behalf of their personal interests”. Through evaluations of Group Theory, Pressure Groups and other prominent models for group behavior, Olson offers a critique of the uses for and problems of collective action within the context of democracy.

The “Group Theory” is based on the idea that each member of any given group is acting out of a fundamental self interest. This argument is rooted in the argument that if interest groups were really selfless in nature, that they would not be working towards a collective goal that is selfish in any way. This is a very perplexing idea because the way that society treats collective action vs. individual action has an observable element of hypocrisy. For instance, if an employee demands a raise, it is often considered greedy or ambitious. On the other hand, if a group of employees (i.e. a labor union) demand an increase in wages, it is often seen as a reasonable request. The greater the number of people organized in seeking a common interest, the more socially rational the goal becomes and the more seriously this faction’s objectives are generally received.

Olson argues that acting as a group does not promise that a group is always acting in their own self-interest. Instead, he maintains that “rational, self-interested individuals will not act to achieve their common or group interests”. This notion is based on the idea that large groups will not further their group objectives if they are simultaneously seeking to benefit their own personal interests. The dynamic of small groups is different than that of large groups and often more intricate because personal relationships come into play. Despite the origin of the specific objective, the environment of the group, or the strategy used to accomplish the objective, groups are ineffective without some element of personal incentive for their members. The common perception that groups built of individuals holding common interests tend to further their collective interests is therefore empirically flawed.

The idea of “Pressure Groups” is oppositional to the Marxian theories of class action. A pressure group is essentially an interest group built of individuals doing a shared type of advocacy. Pressure groups in the United States are often concentrated in the Washington, D.C. and represent an array of corporations, demographics and causes that seek support from government agencies. Olson reveals that, for the most part, groups have a level of power that generally correlates with the amount of members of the group. On the other hand, smaller pressure groups are proven to be more effective than large groups at accomplishing similar objectives.

The arguments in this book can be directly applied to my observation of the role of interest groups in our system of lobbying and legislation. Everyday I witness meetings between lobbyists or representatives from interest groups and the legislative staff from my office. These meetings are made up of individuals trying to convince our member of why their corporation, ideas or cause is important, so that we will in turn do something for them. Their goal is more often than not to convince us to allot them funding or to pass legislation that would favor their organization. While my contact thus far has been with lobbyists themselves, it is interesting to learn about the different types of interest groups that these individuals represent. Olson offers some surprising information about the dynamic and organization of groups, and demonstrates the tangled relationship of collective action and the formation of public policy.

The Quaker's Quandary

Now that we are in recess and daily life has substantially calmed down, everyone in the office is catching up on various projects that they had been putting on hold. One of these tasks is responding to constituent mail, faxes, emails and phone calls. I have written about five letters for Shana (the legislative director) in the last couple of days. The topics of these letters have been very diverse, ranging from the Network Neutrality debate to responses to constituents angry about indecent shows on airing on cable television.

Probably the most challenging letter that I wrote this week was in response to some letters and emails that we have been getting from Quakers over the War in Iraq. These citizens are troubled over the fact that their tax dollars are going towards a war that they believe is morally unjust because of their faith. Due to the fact that religion is involved in this debate, I had to try to be as sympathetic to the constituents' values as possible, while still getting across the Representative’s views on the issue. After much consideration, this is what I came up with:

Dear [Constituent],

Thank you for contacting me in regard to your conscientious objection to war and support for the Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Act. I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts and concerns with me on this important matter. Like you, I agree that prayer is an important part of life for many Americans, and I strongly support religious liberties that allow for the free practice of religion.

As you may already know, H.R.2631, the Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Act was introduced by Representative John Lewis (D-GA). This bill makes the deposit of income, gift, and estate taxes paid by or on the behalf of taxpayers who are designated conscientious objectors opposed to participation in war in any form based upon the person's deeply held moral, ethical, or religious beliefs or training and those who have certified those beliefs in writing. This bill requires that funds in the Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund be allocated annually to any appropriation not for a military purpose. Also, it declares that any increase in revenue to the Treasury resulting from the creation of the Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund shall be allocated in a manner consistent with the purposes of the Fund.

While I understand religious opposition to war, please let me explain why I believe that this initiative may be a slippery slope that could set a dangerous precedent. Once we begin separating tax dollars of different tax payers based on different causes and beliefs, then becomes difficult to determine where this process ends. One could conceive of tax payers who object to social security, public education, Medicare, or a host of other government programs calling for similarly separated tax payments, leading to hundreds of different "funds" and no way to pay for the necessary programs that allow for the basic needs of our country. While I am sympathetic to your point of view, I do not believe that this legislation makes for sound public policy.

Again, I would like to thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. While we disagree on this legislation, I hope and expect that we can agree on a broad range of other important issues. If you have any additional questions or comments please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

[Adam Smith]

Accuracy in Media= Not so Accurate

Today I attended a congressional luncheon called “Accuracy in Media: Al-Jazeera and the War on Terror”. What I thought was going to be an enjoyable and informative presentation about the international press turned out to be something strikingly different. This luncheon was a presentation by a neo-conservative organization of propagandists attempting to persuade the room full of interns and staffers that “America’s liberal media is the reason that we are losing the War in Iraq”.

Sitting there, hearing the speakers warn us of the “menace” of international media was simply astounding. The men who spoke were blatant Bush apologists. They were visiting Congress in order to gain support for opposing the English language ‘Al-Jazeera International’ network that is starting to be broadcast in Europe and might extend its broadcasting to the U.S. over the next year. They want Congress to introduce a bill that would band this channel because it would allegedly “promote global terrorism.”

These representatives from Accuracy in Media did all they could to convince the young audience that having a Middle East-based news network in the United States would immediately cause the entirety of the Muslim American population to suddenly become terrorists. It was truly sickening. They also criticized CNN and the BBC for “unfair, terror-encouraging news coverage”. He explained that the only thing that the Bush Administration was in a “State of Denial” about was the negative impact that alternative media sources were having on public support of our troops. They quoted authors such as Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity, labeling them ‘media experts’ (hah!). The whole ordeal was so laced with irony I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry.

And as frustrating as it was to be sitting there hearing all of this nonsense, the part that disturbed me most was that the interns that I was sitting with were actually buying into it. Just because these men were from an organization that sounded neutral- just because these men were in suits, they suddenly had credibility and legitimacy. These men had a room full of ignorant kids trembling in their seats, ready to run back to their respective offices and try to convince their communications staffers that watching international news will somehow directly cause the death of American soldiers and lead to the corrosion of democracy. Freedom of speech is apparently a thing of the past. Censorship is the sole vehicle for fighting global terrorism. I didn’t eat my sandwich. I figured that would have encouraged the insurgents too.

You heard it here first.

Everyone on the Hill is still completely fixated on the Foley Scandal. Today the Washington Times called for Speaker Hastert’s resignation. This scandal is at the forefront of the media, and a central theme to many of the conversations that I have both been involved in and witnessed over the last few days.

I bring it up again because I may just have some inside information that I feel compelled to share with my readers (the both of you): I heard today, from another intern who overheard it in a conversation between two staffers in a Florida representative’s office that later this week another prominent Republican Congressman is going to resign due to similar allegations of inappropriate conduct. Now, obviously I don’t know details (such as who exactly the Congressman is, or when the story will break), nor do I know if this has any legitimacy whatsoever. I just thought I’d give my audience (Mom and Dad) the heads up for a potential snowballing of this scandal and the larger affects that it may have on the Republican leadership.

I found my friend’s initial reaction to hearing this supposed ‘intelligence’ before it broke in he media a highly comical one:
“Is there a way to make money off of this information?”
Hah. Kids these days.

Assignment 5

Protecting Soldiers and Mothers:
The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States
By Theda Skocpol

Protecting Soldiers and Mothers is an investigation into official initiatives and the resulting affects of changes within political institutions on society. There are a variety of theories that are used to explicate social provisions in the United States. Skocpol offers a “comparatively informed historical case study” by looking at welfare’s origins from a chronological viewpoint. The author questions how the shifting U.S. political atmosphere has contributed to patterns of social policy making. Through a historical analysis of public policy, we can gain insight into political transformations in the United States and the affects of these changes on social policy at large.

Skocpol draws comparisons between different states and contrasts the U.S. welfare system on an international scale. Both quantitative and qualitative evidence are used to illustrate the author’s argument. The book is organized into sections, the first characterizing aspects of America’s distributive social policies with regard to the Civil War. The second section delves into social policy during the Progressive Era, criticizing the lack of labor regulations, worker benefits, social insurance, and old age pensions provided by government institutions. Skocpol finally looks at women’s political mobilization in the early 20th century and the largely “maternalist” social policy that originated in this era.

Public policy and social welfare thrived in nineteenth century America. In the aftermath of the Civil War, intense political party competition increased federal programs and benefits to soldiers, aging veterans and their families. After the Civil War, the Republican Party gave generous pensions to soldiers who had fought for the north. However, although this appears to be a welfare system, Skocpol argues that at this time the United States could not yet be fully classified as a “welfare state”. Instead this social policy was labeled an “unabashed system of public care…for the deserving core of a special population”. It fails to fall under the category of welfare because it was only a small portion of citizens who benefited from it, not a significant portion of the American population. This policy was based on the subjective judgment of moral values, and was not offered to individuals who may have been the most fiscally in need.

Through exploration of American history, it becomes clear that our welfare system originated long before the Social security Act of 1935. While European nations were developing complex social welfare programs in the late nineteenth century in order to support laborers, the United States in contrast focused on aiding “soldiers and mothers”. The initial phase of social provisions in the United States occurred from 1870s until the turn of the century. During this period, the federal government organized generous benefit programs to soldiers while essentially ignoring the welfare needs of the nation’s workers. As the generation of Civil War veterans died off, social program organizers turned their focus towards the education system and the public protection of mothers and children. The welfare programs at this time were run predominantly by female administrators, and principally benefited women and families.

The variable that served as a catalyst for the extension of social provisions to other demographics was election campaigning. Political strategists realized that by expending Civil War benefits program, they could share the rewards with citizens in order to win party supporters. This fueled the organizational changes that were taking place in American institutions in the early nineteen century. One of these transformations was that women were becoming increasingly prominent figures in the political sphere. Women across social classes nationwide were volunteering and joining maternalist associations rooted in advancing the lives of the disadvantaged. American women used their associations to help shape policy so that it cold better assist women, families and children. While women still could not vote at this point, they still had a key role in developing the social consciousness necessary to generate state and federal welfare programs in the United States.

As a contemporary American feminist, I find Skocpol’s suggestion of looking to early-twentieth-century women for inspiration in political involvement to be sensible advice. The truth of the matter is that women in the early 1900s were faced with difficult restrictions pertaining to their involvement in politics. The argument is raised that currently, “clashes among differently situated women over matters such as abortion serve, along with divisions of class and race, to undercut possibilities for an improved welfare state”. Early feminists found a way to organize on a national level in order to produce a new generation of social policy. They dissolved class boundaries and preached solidarity, which is a vital ingredient for successful social change that activists today frequently fail achieve. While it is unlikely that the United State will ever develop a European-style welfare system, there is still hope that feminists and other political activists will find a way to band together and fight for social provisions in order to enhance the wellbeing of American families in need.

Did you hear...?!?!

From what I have observed, Congress in many ways resembles a giant high school. There is the same sort of social hierarchy, the same formation of cliques and groups (many of which are divided along partisan lines), and the same sorts of personal conflicts and drama.

What humors me the most is the extensive gossip system that exists on Capitol Hill. For being part of a major city, the Hill effectively has a “small town” fell- people work here, socialize here and reside here, sometimes existing entirely in this idealistic bubble of politics and partying. With this said, when drama hits, it hits exceptionally hard. As in international-news-hard.

The water cooler talk this week surrounded the rise and fall of Representative Mark Foley. One day it was, “I’ve heard Foley’s a sketch ball”. The next day, “A paige has made allegations about some suggestive email correspondence between him and the Representative”. By the end of the week, not only had everyone in the office independently investigated this gossip via internet, and passed around links to the transcripts of the emails, but by the time the story broke on CNN on Friday afternoon and Foley submitted his resignation, everyone had already called their great-grandmothers and second grade teachers to spread the scandalous intelligence.

When you belong to a small community, even if by small it includes the entirety of Congress and their office staffs, it seems that people react the same in the face of sensational gossip. Granted, I feel a bit guilty for being entertained by this sort of sordid information. Though it certainly makes the workday all the more amusing, and simultaneously alleviates any desire to watch soap operas or read People magazine.

The Child Custody Protection Act

There is little in life that makes me more irate than watching crusty old men in suits on the House floor restricting women’s reproductive rights…which is precisely how I had the pleasure of spending my afternoon.

This week the House debated a bill regarding abortion and the transportation of minors across state borders. The House was considering Amendments to S 403, the Child Custody Protection Act. This bill makes it a crime, punishable by a fine of up to $100,000 and up to one year in prison, for anyone who knowingly takes a minor across state lines with the intent that a minor have an abortion, if the minor resides in a state that has a parental-notification law and no parental notification (or judicial bypass) was obtained.

After hearing of the subject of this bill, I was immediately curious how Adam would vote. One of the benefits of part of being on a Congressional staff is that I have access to a database called “Internet Quorum” that holds each member’s voting record, constituent information, and form letter responses. So, without much trouble I was able to locate several letters from the Smith office regarding abortion as well as look up his voting history on the issue. Looking at Adam’s letters on abortion gave me insight into the reasoning behind why he has voted pro-choice in the past, and the specific details that persuaded him to do so. Adam argues that this legislation would result in dangerous and unforeseen consequences because it would increase illegal and unsafe abortions as well as the incidence of teens abandoning or even killing new born babies. What the letters can provide that simply looking at votes can not is a more extensive explanation behind the vote.

While many of my housemates’ opinions differ with their respective Congressman’s opinions on various issues, I am endlessly thankful that Adam’s stance on important issues such as reproductive rights is progressive and falls in line with my personal attitudes. Our aligning of values makes it substantially easier for me to get up at 7:00 every morning and head to the office to sort his mail.

September Flurry.

On my walk to work on Monday morning, I passed a friend who is interning for a Congressman as well. He looked at me, clearly distressed and somberly uttered: “Welcome to hell, Cat.”

While acutely exaggerated, my friend’s opinion regarding the impending days was a common one. This was to be the start of an exceptionally hellacious work week. As the last week that Congress will be in session before going into recess for most of next month, there was a lot that needed to be accomplished. During October, Congressmen return to their respective districts in order to campaign for the November elections. This means that attempt to squeeze in as much as they can during their last moments in September’s session. Everyone I know here on the Hill has long been bracing themselves for this week of intense political exertion.

It is truly a challenge to attempt documenting the flurry that has overcome the office over the past few days. Every day this week there has been numerous votes, which means the office is incredibly hectic and exciting. There are lobbyists constantly coming and going and infinite errands that keep me running around the Congress Office buildings for hours at a time. I also had the opportunity to work on a project for Mark, the Legislative staffer in charge of foreign relations, defense and trade. I was asked to go through a 500 page memo that showed all of the funding being allotted to various departments of the military in search of specific earmarks that Adam had worked to get funded as a member of the House Committee on Armed Services. Although it was a tedious task, it was also extraordinarily fascinating to investigate for myself exactly how much money is given to each part of the military. I had simply never considered the amount of time and deliberation that goes into allotting funding for such obscure and specific elements of each government organization.

This week has been utterly exhausting but fantastically rewarding. My intern duties have become more demanding but also more satisfying, and I finally feel like I’m getting used to the D.C. lifestyle. While the frantic blur of in-session weeks has proven to be absolutely thrilling, I can honestly say that I will welcome mellower October with open arms. The best part? I can wear jeans and t-shirts every day.

Assignment 4

Bureaucracy
By James Q. Wilson

Wilson looks at the prominent bureaucracies of the United States government and how they work, what they accomplish and how they could be improved. This book looks at government agencies such as public schools, the police, the military, the Postal Service and the State Department in order to illustrate the important role of bureaucratic organizations to the way the society functions. The critical theme of this book is that bureaucracies are not simple organizations that can be explained through uniform models. They face unique constraints and limitations that can not be alleviated by a particular formula. The author once again employs Max Weber’s theories about the evolution of bureaucratization in modern society to provide context for his arguments. Wilson doubts the cohesiveness of the realm of study labeled “organizational theory” because of the diversity and inconsistency of bureaucratic agencies.

Public confidence in government organizations has been declining over the past several decades. This decline has been historically linked to the ‘critical’ media coverage and the resulting resentments stemming from political scandal (Vietnam, Watergate, Lewinsky). The most significant variable, however, is that the government is held responsible for more things than ever before. And logically, when one organization has responsibility for more tasks, less gets accomplished efficiently. Under the Clinton administration there was a movement to make government bureaucracies more efficient and accessible known as the “National Performance Review” or “Reinventing Government” (REGO). The objective of this movement was to repair federal employee morale and restore public confidence in government organizations. The battle cry for this faction was that the government must ‘cut the red tape’ and limit the superfluous restrictions that plague government organizations in order to put the needs of citizens first.

Organizations such as schools, prisons and the military are reviewed in one portion of the book. Wilson notes that the success of an organization is much more dependent on the structure of the agency than with any other factor. The different incentives that drive agencies are analyzed and compared in this book. There are three major types of incentives behind decision making in bureaucratic organizations. First, the management of workload and level of efficiency is a contributing factor to the way in which an agency is controlled and maintained. Another is the expectation of employers, peers and customers. A final incentive is personal ideology and convictions. Varying amounts of each type of incentive affect agencies in different ways and therefore contribute to the success or failure the organization.

Wilson observes that “No politician ever lost votes by denouncing the bureaucracy”. Top bearcats and citizens of the general public alike, are baffled and discouraged by the complicated nature of the government and its numerous agencies. By focusing on the context in which federal organizations are governed, namely through the roles of the Presidency, Congress and Courts system, we are able to identify differences in the competence of bureaucratic administrators divided along international lines. Executives are essential parts of any organization though their role and approach often differs between agencies. Their purpose as defined by Wilson involves “performing agency tasks in a way that minimizes the effort needed to maintain the organization” which can also be called ‘Organizational Maintenance”. In completing this task, executives must ensure flow of crucial resources and encourage efficiency and innovation from the workforce.

It is curious that Wilson chooses to explicitly note in the text that the information presented in this book is not highly practical in the life of the average American citizen. This book is committed to explaining the structure, methodology and significance of specific government agencies, but this detailed analysis is not what is important in the eye of the author. The value of this particular information is essential to grasp in order to comprehend the way that the United Sates Government works on a greater scale. Wilson is optimistic about the future of government bureaucracies. He recognizes the constraints that these organizations are limited by, and looks to find methods ease them. The author acknowledges that the same problems afflict democratic governments universally, but that there are things that we can do to make them better. The agencies of the United States government are fragmented in nature and only through analysis and critique can they be made more efficient and accessible for the next generation.

America’s bureaucracy is paradoxical in that it must follow rigid rules and conventions while still attempting to remain accessible to the public. American citizens (me included) are caught in a dilemma of desiring both personalized and friendly service- with the speed and accuracy of a robotic machine. The United States’ government was not created with the purpose of providing the most efficient social programs or effective public agencies achievable. Instead, the goal of our constitutional system was to ensure a balance of power while making as many citizens as safe and content as possible, which is plainly the fundamental ambition of my bureaucratic co-workers and the elected officials who employ us.

No Martin Sheen.

I had been told not to get my hopes up about the White House. But after all these years of following politics, all these years of reading presidential biographies, all these years of watching "The West Wing", I couldn’t conceive of it being anything less than a complete thrill for me. Well, today I finally got the opportunity to visit the White House. And it was just that- a big white house: No unparalleled grandeur. No oval office (we could only see the East Wing). No prominent politicians. No Martin Sheen.

I am thankful for being able to say that I've now been inside the White House, but the entire experience was frustratingly lackluster. The only rooms that are on display are three small reception rooms and a dining room. There are no tour guides, signs or information whatsoever to give meaning to what is on display. Visitors essentially have no clue what it is they are seeing or what has happened in these rooms throughout history. If half of the amount of attention would be paid towards visitor education that is put towards security, the White House tour could have the potential to be exceptionally memorable for visitors. As it is now, I could honestly tell any tourist that I found the Library of Congress a more riveting attraction.

On the bright side, it was worth making the trip over there if for nothing else but to see the presidential portraits that lined the halls. Many have been there for centuries such as one of George Washington that was hung in 1800. Interestingly, the only portrait of a first lady was of Hillary Clinton (and boy, did I overhear some ardent disapproval from a group of Texan tourists about this fact). In my opinion the most stunning portrait was of President John F. Kennedy. This painting was done by Aaron Shikler in 1970 and depicts Kennedy looking down, posed with his arms crossed. The artist’s technique is coarse and hazy, giving it a solemn and mysterious tone. It is highly distinctive from the rest, both in style and mood. It literally stopped me in my tracks.

The portraits make me consider that although the White Hose was not what I had expected it to be, it is somewhat incredible to have visited the place where such legendary public figures have presided and lived throughout our nation’s history.

I'll have another brie tartlet please.

After work today my intern buddies and I attended some receptions. Generally we will get word of one or maybe a couple of receptions on a given night. Today, however, we hit the jackpot and learned of three different receptions going on in the House office buildings. After work finished, we promptly began “reception hopping”.

It’s all part of the standard Capitol Hill lifestyle: every evening starting around 6pm, the caucus rooms in each office building hold parties. These receptions are open to anyone working in Congress offices and are generally hosted by organizations such as non-profits who want to gain visibility for or thank Congress for support. Receptions are supposed to be good “networking” opportunities where one could potentially schmooze with politicians and Washington big wigs. In all honesty though, the driving force behind our regular attendance at receptions is the sole fact that they are extravagantly catered.

There is something worth saying for having access to free gourmet dinners every night.
I certainly can’t complain

In the news/ Out the window

I am finally getting accustomed to reading the “New York Times” or watching CNN to learn about what is going on at work on a given day. It is thrilling and bizarre to know that what is happening in the halls around you is significant enough to make national and even global headlines on a daily basis.

This morning Congress was in the headlines once again, but this time the story was not about the political agenda, but rather a security breach and lockdown. This event occurred virtually across the street from my house on East Capital sometime during my daily walk from my home to work. I heard masses of sirens and a commotion, but thought nothing of it at the time (I am used to living amidst sirens in such I high security neighborhood). The CNN headline that greeted me upon my entry to work explained what had happened in more detail: Allegedly, a armed man on PCP managed to breach security and run into the Capitol building after crashing is car through security blockades.

Rather alarming to know that someone could make it all the way to the Capital’s rotunda carrying a weapon before being captured. Everyone at the office was a little shocked, but not shaken up at the least. After only a brief lockdown, staff was let back into the Capitol Office Buildings and news media sources were swarming the surrounding lawns to cover the story. The work day proceeded to go on as though nothing had happened. I on the other hand, spent a little time in a state of concern that a potentially dangerous situation had just occurred in such close proximity to my residence and place of work…. and all before 8am! Apparently the crazies get an early start in the District.

Assignment 3

Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay
By Charles Perrow

In this critical essay, Perrow looks to provide a developmental overview of the major schools of thought pertaining to complex bureaucratic organizations. An organization is a tool that executives and those holding power use to create a measurable output. Often, society blames the negative characteristics of organizations that are bureaucratic in structure. The truth that the author seeks to reveal is that most of the time there is not anything inherently wrong with the hierarchical structure itself.

Perrow emphasizes, the problems actually stem most frequently from human error and corrupt social practices and that maladministration, miscalculations, and the abuse of power are identified at the true causes of problems within bureaucratic systems rather than the model of organization itself. Perrow believes that instead of “flailing away at the windmills of bureaucracy” critics time would be better spent looking at quality of the individuals who have managed to obtain the power at the top level of a given organization. He firmly stands by the assertion that with the development of industrialization, bureaucratic enterprises are the most efficient at getting things done.

In order to critique the organization and practices of bureaucracy, it is important to have a basic understanding of its definition and origins. Perrow draws from Weber’s model of bureaucracy. The “Weberian” classification of bureaucracy is characterized through three major components: the structure of the organization, the means of rewarding effort, and the treatment of the individual within the context of the organization. The structure of a bureaucracy is hierarchical in nature, with levels of offices that are each controlled by a higher level of a smaller amount of offices. The more advanced the level of office, the fewer offices exist and the more responsibilities each individual has. The level of office is positively correlated with the amount of power and control the individual holding that office has over the structure as a whole. After laying the groundwork for the definition and structure of bureaucratic organizations, Perrow goes on to discuss management and the origins of the Human Relations movement. Weber believes that bureaucratic organizations must ideally be rooted in morality and logic. He also brings in Barnard’s oppositional argument that organizations are simply measures of human cooperation, and are fundamentally democratic in nature.

In a discussion of human relations, Perrow explains historical investigations into the link between productivity and quality of environmental conditions. This experiment essentially showed that better treatment of employees, has a direct positive effect on the productivity and thus profitability of workers (the Hawthorne Effect). Experiments regarding quality of leadership had similar results on measured productivity, with good leadership positively influencing productivity of employees. Although many experiments into productivity and morale have shown a positive linear relationship, the overall implications of environmental quality within all organizations remains inconclusive according to Perrow. Rather, the more significant factor in explaining productivity within organizations is the Groups Relations model, which purposes that productivity is rooted more significantly in sociological rather than psychological factors.

We then critique organizations through the lens of the Neo-Weberian model. This theory goes beyond Weber’s original explanation in order to include the influence of modern variables. It is noted that if the technology does not appropriately fit an organization, than the organization will pay a price in efficiency and profits. The institutional school is yet another theory that seeks to explain the environmental impacts on an organization and the effectiveness of its workforce. Through manipulation of the modern models of bureaucratic organization, it is possible to gauge and develop the effectiveness of decision making, the incidence of conflict, and the role of technology.

The theory of bureaucracy is an evolutionary entity. The message that Perrow explicitly encourages the reader to take from this text is that one should beware of “the functionalism that assumes that a pattern is historically expected, given certain initial conditions”. Although this book is more focused on the abstract and theoretical aspects of the bureaucratic organizations, there are infinite parallels between what I am reading about in Perrow’s book and what I have observed on a daily basis my new workplace. I have noted both the rewards and disadvantages of being an employee of the nation’s most prominent bureaucracy, the United States government. My internship in Congress has given me access to the most rigid and historically prearranged system of organized bureaucracy that dream of. Everyone in government works under an official with more power and more voice in the organization overall. Virtually the only way to successfully gain traction in rising through this hierarchy is to follow the professional norms of the organization and adhere to social standards and behavioral norms.

What I have noticed is that people are constantly criticizing the government and blaming personal frustrations on “the bureaucracy”. Whether they are government employees who have not been promoted, or just citizens who have to wait in a long line at the DMV, there are always going to be complaints about “the system”. However, after both reading about the origins and structure of the modern bureaucracy as well as working in one, I firmly agree with Perrow’s notion that it is essentially the only organizational structure capable of efficiently and fairly administrating any vast association, corporation or government.

Sincerely, Representative Adam Smith

Today I wrote my first constituent letter. I have been assigned to write letters to the legislative director, Shana. She is responsible for judiciary issues including civil rights and liberties, human rights, tax issues, science and technology among other things. The letter that I wrote was in response to constituent mail that our office has been getting in opposition to Court Justices legislating from the bench. Before I began the letter I had to research the representative’s voting background on judicial issues. I also had to obtain information on one of the more recent bills to be introduced called the Judicial Conduct Act. Writing letters is a great way to learn more about a current issue, and is especially rewarding because you know it is something that citizens from your state actually care about at the moment.

When researching for constituent letters, there are many resources available to congressional staff. The internet is most frequently used for research on issues and Bills because it is kept most current. There are numerous government websites dedicated to legislative research. Another source frequently used is “Dear Colleague” letters. These are informative letters that are passed around Congress from Members who are pushing to get an issue on the agenda. These letters generally provide a brief summary of an issue or a Bill, but are often biased because they are generally sent with the intent of trying to get members on their side of an issue. When you pull information from a Dear Colleague, it is important to remember that they are not always fully objective accounts of an issue. Additional resources of information also include the popular press, calling the office of the member who introduced the Bill, or contacting one of the numerous congressional research experts.

The process of writing letters reminds me a lot of writing papers for college- you are assigned a topic, do the research, and then present the information in a clear and organized manner. As many similarities do exist, writing constituent mail is something that I am still working to get the hang of. The hardest part is that letters must be written from the point of view of the Representative himself. This is a perspective that will take some time getting used to, but I look forward to cultivating my “congressman voice” as I continue to write constituent responses.

I come from a land down under...

The buildings of Congress have a remarkable resemblance to Willy Wonka’s chocolate factory. This observation was brought to my attention during my first ride on the underground electric tram that shoots employees from the sub-basement of the Capitol back to the House office buildings. The open air tram whizzes down a winding track, the walls on either side covered in state flags. It dawned on me during this ride that the tram that there are indeed many interesting and unusual elements of the buildings of the Capitol, that I had not known before working there.

There are several different office buildings, surrounding the Capitol itself. These structures are connected through a series of tunnels so that people can get from building to building without having to go outside. The oldest tunnels are narrow and winding, in these halls one basically has to walk in a single file line in order to avoid bumping into congressmen rushing the opposite direction (Bill Frist nearly knocked me over while rushing through the halls last week). The newer tunnels in Longworth and Cannon Buildings are broad and maze-like. There are many places to find nourishment in the tunnels including cafeterias, restaurants, coffee shops and ice-cream parlors. In case you were worried that we might have to venture outside for other provisions- fear not, the Capitol offer much more than just food. We also have a bank, post office, photo shop, newspaper stand, shoe-shiner, office supply store and a gym (and those are only the things that I have happened to wander past thus far). There is truly another entire city that exists underneath the streets of Washington, D.C.

I’ve been told that such an extensive part of Congress’s buildings are underground so that incase of an attack on the Capitol, the top government employees would be able to remain safely underground. Apparently there are even collections of food and emergency supplies in secret rooms underneath the tunnels, and that there are enough protective gas masks stored throughout the tunnels to save the thousands of employees should there be a biological or chemical attack. I’m not sure if knowing about all of the precautions makes me feel more or less safe in my work environment. Regardless, I feel pretty darn cool flashing my federal employee identification, and knowing that I have access to this mysterious subterranean world of trams, office supplies and ice cream.

Pro-faith. Pro-choice.

As I entered the Congress boardroom amidst a crowd of legislators and clergymen, a waiter handed me a glass of chardonnay. What was I to do but sip, mingle and debate reproductive rights?

I have now been working in the office for a week, happily completing my daily routine of predominantly secretarial duties (which have proven surprisingly enjoyable because of the wonderful with whom I work). As busy as the administrative work keeps me, I have been getting increasingly curious lately to see what is happening beyond the marble office walls of Adam Smith. All day, everyday, there are dozens of receptions, briefings, speeches, luncheons and press conferences going on in the buildings of Congress. I began itching for the opportunity to attend some of these events.

Today I got my chance. An attractive invitation crossed my desk as I sorted the mail and inspired me to muster the courage to express my desires to go to a briefing to one legislative staff. We discussed my interest in certain issues, and moments later I was presented with the option of attending a caucus later on that very day.

Of course I would have jumped at the opportunity to attend any briefing, but the fact that it combined two of my most passionate social issue interests: religion and abortion, was merely icing on the cake. The meeting itself was a forum hosted by the Religious Coalition for Reproduction Choice. This group is essentially a national interfaith organization representing American’s who support a woman’s right to choose. This group works to protect our nation’s constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion and opposes civil laws that would impose specific religious views. The briefing’s panel of speakers included a rabbi, a reverend, and a university chaplain who each spoke about being pro-choice within the context of their respective beliefs.

Reproductive rights are an issue that I care very strongly about, and I went into this meeting thinking that I had heard all sides of the debate. The fact is, religious leaders would be the last people that I would have anticipated speaking out in support of a woman’s right to choose. Attending this briefing served not only to educate me further about the values and texts of a variety of religious denominations, but it also helped me dissolve stereotypes regarding the "kind" of people involved in women’s rights activism.

Assignment 2

Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis
By Graham Allison and Phillip Zelikow

There were thirteen days in October 1962 when the United States and the Soviet Union nearly killed hundreds of millions of each other’s citizens through nuclear proliferation. This book looks at this important near-disaster, the reasons for it, and foreign policy involved in avoiding it.

The chief questions that this book looks to answer include why did the Soviet Union place strategic offensive missiles in Cuba? Why did the United States respond with a naval quarantine of Soviet shipments to Cuba? Why were the missiles ultimately withdrawn? And what are the lessons policymakers have learned from this event? This book examines these puzzles and others through “conceptual lenses” and not simply hard evidence in order to provide students with an aid in exploring fundamental choices among the categories and assumptions that direct our judgments regarding problems facing foreign policy.

Experts in the field of foreign affairs, politicians, and citizens all consider troubles in the spheres of foreign and military policy in terms of “largely implicit conceptual models that have significant consequences for the content of their thought”. This means that individuals who analyze foreign policy (whether they are professional experts or informal evaluators) look at foreign affairs in an over-simplified methodology, when in fact they should be examining historical events and future international involvements through a more theoretical and abstract manner. When an individual looks to patterns, models and conceptual frames in order to explain an event or decision, then they can observe the problem through a more critical eye, therefore enhancing their accuracy of prediction.

There are a number of differing models identified in this book that can be used to explain the behavior of national governments in a time of crisis. The most prominent model discussed is the ‘Rational Actor Model’. An expert working under this theory would look at the Cuban Missile Crisis as a set of reasonable choices made by unified governments in the face of adversity. The main idea behind this model is that “important events have important causes”. This theory maintains that this event in history is constructed of two opposing sides with divergent goals, and that decisions made by policymakers are results of striving to attain these objectives.

Along with presenting multiple theories regarding the studying of foreign affairs, this book also gives a detailed account of the organizational decisions and central people involved in the event. First, the reasoning behind why the Soviet Union decided to put missiles in Cuba is discussed. One theory is that it was in order to assist Cuban defense. Another was that it was simply another step in arms race and power rivalry that was the defining motivation in the Cold War politics of this time. A third hypothesis is that the Soviets did not have advanced enough missiles at this time to deploy them from sites at home and be able to make it to targets in North America. A final theory is that Khrushchev was using these strategic missiles in order to solve the Berlin problem. The Soviets wanted American forces out of Berlin and Kennedy reacted by increasing U.S. military presence there. The struggle for power over Berlin played a role in the tension between Soviet/ American relations during this time.

After reading this book, I would identify the political and personal relationship between Chairman Khrushchev and President Kennedy as topic worthy of study in and of itself. Elements of this relationship can be used as primary evidence when analyzing this international crisis. For instance, to me the Berlin entanglement appears the most convincing argument for justification behind the Soviet’s decision to put missiles in Cuba. There is a colorful quote that Khrushchev directed at Kennedy amidst diplomatic talks about Berlin that illustrate this point flawlessly, “It’s been a long time since you could spank us like a little boy- now we can swat your ass. So let’s not talk about force. We are equally strong. You want Berlin. Access to it goes through East Germany. We have the advantage. If you want to do anything, you have to start a war” (p. 102). There is copious evidence that could be cited when arguing that the reason that the Soviets deployed missiles to Cuba was due to the Berlin struggle, but this quote says it all. This book has shown me the importance of looking to personal relationships and specific interactions between world leaders when studying international affairs and critical events in history.

Another prevailing issue of the Cuban Missile Crisis deals with the rationale behind the United States’ choice to respond to the Soviet missile deployment with a blockade. At the point of missile deployment, there were many courses of action that the United States government could have taken. The military could have simply done nothing. They could have invaded Cuba and removed Castro as dictator. Or they could have alternatively destroyed the missiles sites through an air attack (p. 115). Although a blockade on military shipments to Cuba presented tensions of its own, it was by far the most effective nonviolent response to the Soviet’s nuclear intimidation.

When on October 28th, 1962, Khrushchev announced that the missiles in Cuba would be returned to the Soviet Union, it was a true testament to the power of negotiation. Throughout the entire crisis, Kennedy decisively held the military back, against their own wishes. By giving Khrushchev multiple chances to back down, Kennedy succeeded in keeping civil control and therefore saved the lives of millions of Soviet and American citizens. If I have learned one thing from this historical event it is that nonviolent diplomatic pressures can be tremendously influential and that we should look to Kennedy’s tactics in dealing with the Cuban Missile Crisis as a model for easing current and future international conflicts.

Save the Horses

Now, the means by which our nation disposes of elderly horses may seem like a superfluous detail in the greater scheme of politics. But after spending three days in a congressional office, I can assure you that there are countless American citizens (or at least countless citizens of he the 9th congressional district of Washington State) who feel ever so passionately about the issue. Congress was scheduled to vote on the horse slaughter ban today. This lead to a dramatic influx of calls, letters, emails and faxes over the past few days from enraged constituents.

Today Congress voted on the American Horse Slaughter prevention Act (HR 503). Over the past few days, our office has been inundated with constituent calls, emails, letters and faxes regarding this issue. There was a 4 hour period yesterday in which our office received over 400 calls in support of this bill. Many of the citizens were advocates of the humane society who wanted to make sure that “Representative Smith treated horses like cats and dogs”. On the other side there were agricultural lobbyists who called and emailed with statistics on how much the money the ban would cost the federal government due to the fact that they would have to create shelters for these horses.

After carefully listening to constituents and reading memos about the bill, I was highly curious about which way Smith would vote. I could see reasons to vote each way. The lobbyists were very convincing, but the sheer number of constituents who contacted us about supporting the bill was staggering. When we asked the legislative assistant responsible for animal issues only an hour before the vote, he told us that the congressman had not yet made up his mind.

It turns out that Smith did vote in support of the ban, and furthermore, the ban was passed in the House of Representatives. This bill entirely prohibits the shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing, selling, or donation of horses and other equines to be slaughtered for human consumption, and for other purposes. So don’t get any ideas.

Even though this bill seemed slightly ridiculous to me at first, it was a good example of the process by which bills are introduced, debated, voted on and passed in congress. I’m not entirely certain what exactly made Smith decide to support the bill (I'll ask a staffer tomorrow), but I’d like to think that it had something to do with the hundreds of constituents who contacted our office and voiced their opinion. Maybe answering the phone is a more valuable step in the democratic process than I had originally thought; maybe next time I see an elderly horse, it'll give me a little wink.

First day on the job.

This was my first day of interning. I ran through the rain, in heels no less, the three blocks to work (I have never worn heels before in my life). I made it slightly soggy but geared up to meet everyone and start working. To get into the building you must go through a strict security station. I wasn’t sure if they might try to confiscate my liquids, but they seemed to think I, and my handlotion for that matter, were both harmless.

My coworkers at the office are as warm and “northwestern-ly” as could be, which is comforting after having been surrounded by my cowboy housemates for the past few days. The girl who is just finishing her internship there spent the day showing me how to do all of the tasks that interns are responsible for. These include answering the phones, sorting mail, delivering things around congress, going to briefings, writing constituent letters, and making sure everyone is happy and fully caffeinated in the office. When she showed me the list of intern duties, I looked at it and thought… “Is that all? They are really paying me to hang out with politicians and sort mail?? Good deal!” It was not until 6pm hours later did I realize that I hadn’t stopped working industriously for the past eight hours. The work environment? Absolutely overwhelming and so much fun.

My first day taught me this: working at a congressional office is relentlessly tiring and enormously exciting work. There are ten people in the office who are simultaneously ordering you to read letters, run errands, answer the phone, enter data and write things down with one hand while making coffee with the other.

Now that I am back at home I only enough energy left over to climb up the stairs to my room, crawl into bed, and dream about c-span.