Representative of the People?
HIGHLAND, UT | 7 June 2008 | Hillary Clinton at least bought a house in New York and pretended to set up residency so she could legally and legitimately represent that state in the Senate. The face of Utah politics in 2008 has a man running for Congress in one district and living in another. He can’t even vote for himself, yet he plans to somehow represent a constituency remote from himself?
I had an email conversation with a friend today in which I challenged this friend’s premise that Chaffetz is the best candidate for that seat. The premise was:
Chaffetz is worthy to win based strictly on his merits—not his money, his name or his political connections.
This caused me to reflect for a moment on what that actually means.
What is in a name?A name, in this context, is a reputation. A name becomes either good or bad based upon the character of the person carrying that name. In a word, a name is a merit. The Cannon family has spent generations building up a good name, most of it based upon the merits of good people and wise people, the very type of person we claim to be looking for. Chaffetz? What is in his name? He is a veritable nobody. No one of significance can look at his name and say, “Yes, now there’s a man of wisdom and goodness.”
Money—what is the responsibility of Congress? First is the power of the purse. Constitutionally, all monetary bills start in the House of Representatives. Who better to have in Congress than someone who indicates with his own life that he understands the proper management of money? I don’t understand why we would want to elect someone to this office whose life is an indication that they do not understand money.
Now, that being said, what of Jason Chaffetz’ money? He lives in Alpine (NOT in District 3, by the way) and if the house on the video is his house, which I have no reason to believe otherwise, there is a pretty good indication that he has money. In remaining true to my statement above, this is a plus to Chaffetz. However, if he is running a campaign on the premise that he is pretending not to be a person of means, then this video has revealed him to be a hypocrite in this matter. I don’t know if this is one of his premises or if it was simply one of the premises you choose in determining a suitable candidate, so please help me understand that.
Political Connections—what do you know about either candidates’ political connections? Here is what I know. Cannon has been active in politics for many years. He comes from a family who cares deeply about the political situation in the state and the nation, probably also on the more important local levels as well. Because of his many years of activity and experience, I am sure he has developed camaraderie with other politically active people both in and out of the party, as well as in Utah and in Washington. He is a leader in Congress as well as a leader in state politics. His political connections should be applauded rather than denigrated.
If, however, you believe a person should not have political connections in order to serve in this position, let’s evaluate Chaffetz’ possible political connections. He served as Governor Huntsman’s chief of staff for a period of time. This is not a position a person gets appointed to without connections. The fact that he served in this position is indication that he has some really good connections. So, if you are looking for someone who has no connections then Chaffetz is not your man. You were better to have picked one of the lesser known candidates who were able only to generate a dozen votes at convention and can’t figure out why they don’t get elected. It is because they have absolutely no political connection. I just don’t think it is warrant-able to use connectivity or non-connectivity alone as a premise for getting someone elected. Moreover, again, a person’s political connections is good indication of his/her merits.
Merits—What are merits if they are not somehow grounded in a person’s ability to create and maintain a good name, perform business in such a way as to successfully obtain money and to manage it effectively to keep it for a good amount of time, and the ability to work well with other people in a way that he can create political connections? These are all manifestations of a person’s merits. But there is one more, the merit I believe you are wanting to base electability on, and that is the person’s track record. Chris Cannon has an amazing track record in the House of Representatives. He has 100% voting record. He is not back there screwing around on the tax payer’s dime. He has a 96% approval record on the emigration question. You will not find a greater advocate for the cause of freedom and the protection of the constitution. He has nearly no earmarks or pork. On the websites I know of that report such things, he has $0 earmarked. Those merits sound pretty good.
What exactly are Jason Chaffetz’ merits? Here is all I know. He was a leader of the campus Democrats while attending BYU. (Don’t know what merit that is either way since most college students are ignorantly liberal, knowing very little about the world.) He served briefly as Gov. Huntsman’s chief of staff, a bureaucratic position rather than an elected one. I don’t know what other political activities he has ever participated in. His campaign website says nothing of his experience, which leads me to believe he has none. To say nothing of his desires to truly serve his fellow citizens whether he is elected or not. He speaks very well and has memorized all the slick talking points quite nicely, which to me is a sign to be cautious of his real intent, many very dangerous people in history have possessed the slick ability to speak eloquently—smooth as oil as one prominent 19th century figure put it.
Conclusion
The wisdom of our Founders created a brand new style of government, one that took on the strengths of many different types throughout the ages. One of the greatest strengths was the separation of powers between the states and the people. Congress uniquely represented both, originally. The Senate, chosen by each state’s legislatures was to represent the states, not the people. The Seventeenth Amendment turned the Senate into a House of Representatives at large. The House of Representatives has always been the people’s chamber. The Constitution directs that Reps are elected ‘by the people of the several states.’ In 1842, Congress stipulated that members should represent certain districts of their given states rather than be at large representatives. This was a wise move, as the at-large system was becoming chaotic and confusing. Even the Founders expressed their wisdom on this matter. George Mason:
The requisites in actual representation are that the representatives should sympathize with their constituents; should think as they think, and feel as they feel; and that for these purposes should even be residents among them.
In this day when we complain long and loud that politicians are out of touch with their constituents, don’t you think it most prudent to give those constituents at least a fighting chance at the onset by electing the candidate who lives among them? Even Hillary saw the prudence in that!
I couldn't agree with you more. Yes, morals are objective, while the valuation of material things is subjective.
God values ...
I think the point here is that people choose those whom they trust. When the government, by force, arranges a ...
Ammon,
As always, you bring up good points. You're right--truth doesn't need to have an advantage of time in order ...
I think one of the greatest things about the voting process is that there is never complete objectivity or truth, ...
Comment by Ross58 on 9 June 2008:
GERRYMANDERING: to divide (a territorial unit) into election districts to give one political party an electoral majority in a large number of districts while concentrating the voting strength of the opposition in as few districts as possible.
The fact that Jason lives outside the district is due to gerrymandering that took place in an attempt to oust Matheson over 10 years ago. Gerrymandering takes place all the time in politics as a method of gaining votes for the gerrymandering politician and reducing votes for your opposition. Therefore the Constitution protects us from gerrymandering by allowing you to run for office regardless of where you live within your state. The point that Jason Chaffetz lives outside of the 3rd congressional district is rendered even more impotent by the fact that Jason lives more centrally to the district he’s running in than Chris Cannon. West Jordan and Magna are nowhere near Mapleton where Mr. Cannon lives and there are many in SL County who are dissatisfied with their lack of representation by Mr. Cannon.
All this said, I personally don’t care where my representative resides as long as they vote the way I would vote, in support of my values and concerns, and compliant with our laws and constitution. Jason Chaffetz notably does that.
Comment by CJ on 9 June 2008:
As far as Jason Chaffetz merrits go, you forgot that he worked for NuSkin Enterprise for 10 years. Started and ran his own succesful business Mexterra.
Live with his won people? It’s two miles, he has lived in the district much of his life and was only moved when the Utah Legislature Gerrymandered Alpine out. Our founding fathers were wise to allow anyone who lives in a state to run for a congressional seat.
Hillary was not even a resident of New York until she wanted to run, if someone can’t see the difference between the two than so be it.
Comment by Joel Nelson on 9 June 2008:
What is in a name?
I have personally spoken with Jason Chaffetz. I don’t know his geneology, nor do I factor his name or his family into how well I think he would represent me. I have asked him a few very challenging questions. I can honestly say I am impressed enough with him as an individual that I can say, “Yes, now there’s a man of wisdom and goodness.” However, I do not say that because of his name, I say that because that is my impression of him. Whether he will be an effective representative of the third congressional district in Utah is yet to be determined. Considering his ability to inovate and react effectively on his feet, I am confident he would not fail in representing us.
I have also met Chris Cannon. I have never met any of his family, nor do I factor his name or his family into my opinion of how well he may represent me. I do not hold him in as high regard as an individual as I do Jason Chaffetz. I have asked Chris challenging questions, and he was unable or unwilling to answer my questions satisfactorily. Though he has been, arguably, somewhat effective in representing Utah’s third congressional district, I cannot say that I consider him to be “a man of wisdom and goodness” because that was not my impression after meeting him. Had he been more open with me when I spoke with him, I may have had a different impression.
Maybe I haven’t been fair with either of these two men, but that is my experience and that is my opinion.
Comment by Doug P. on 9 June 2008:
WOW! I am amazed at your logic and rationale for choosing a candidate to vote for in an election.
Residency - My neighbor lives across the street. The arbitrary line dividing our congressional districts runs right between us. You allege he would be incapable of properly representing me since he doesn’t live in my district. Pssst… I have some ocean front property in Utah County I want to sell you.
Name - Vote for Cannon. He has name recognition. Jason Chaffetz “is a veritable nobody”. Did you find this nugget of wisdom in the last box of Cracker Jacks your son had? How in the world did name recognition and the ability to represent become synonymous?
Money - I agree with your assessment that appearances indicate Chaffetz understands how to earn and manage money. Most business owners do. What I disagree with is your accusation that Chaffetz is a hypocrite because he lives in a nice house, in a nice area and claims not to be a person of means. Do you really believe that? What type of dwelling would support this statement in your opinion?
Connections - Connections only come into play if you have marginal ideas and no way to move them forward. I need funding for my “Hog Farmers Museum”. I can’t get legislation passed to fund my museum on its own merits, so I attach it to another bill. I tell my “connections” not to object to my funding provision, and I will support legislative initiatives they are offering. A little quid pro quo never hurts anyone. What really matters is the connection.
Merits - To insinuate that an incumbent representative has more merit than a challenger based on their voting record is absurd. A comparison of this sort is only meaningful if made between individuals with the same opportunity to perform. Chaffetz has not been able to cast a single vote on legislation. You can’t hold that against him. A monkey could be elected to Congress and generate the identical voting record you laud Cannon for. That doesn’t make either of them a good representative, just one who is able to vote consistently. I need a representative who will examine the issues, and the consequences, and act appropriately. Cannon believes he is a shoo in to win each time re-election rolls around, and therefore doesn’t need to be accountable to his constituents. He is wrong.
I especially enjoyed your innuendo about Chaffetz being a closet Democrat based on his political activity in college. Is there no room for reformed liberals in Republican party? Independents?
Conclusion - I believe Cannon has no position of his own on the issues, he merely apes the position of others. He has had several years to prove his leadership abilities and has fallen short. The big initiative of Cannon’s political career… WIFI internet access across the nation. Why would we legislate something that should be left in the hands of business owners and service providers. Less government intrusion into the affairs of business is what we need.
A candidate’s position on the issues is more relevant than which side of a gerrymandered boundary they live on. Their character and integrity are more important than name recognition. A representative should have a connection with their constituents, not their political buddies. Just my opinion.
Comment by Emily E on 10 June 2008:
You obviously construed the meaning of what Jason was trying to tell you. Have you looked at how much Chaffetz has spent on his campaign as compared to Cannon? What he’s saying is that he doesn’t have to buy votes. He can win based on the issues. Governor Huntsman didn’t endorse Jason. But, the big wigs in Washington sure have endorsed Cannon. The people that AREN’T living in Utah. And, the whole “not living in the third district” thing is getting really old. Please tell me why I would be better represented by someone living in Mapleton as opposed to Alpine? I’d love to hear the answer, no one has been able to do it so far.
Comment by David Edward Garber on 10 June 2008:
Interesting points, Jason.
I’ll judge both Chaffetz and Cannon on their own individual merits, thanks, and not on how long and hard their respective families have worked to get the public to view them in a positive way. Besides, image is less important to me than substance and, last I checked, goodness and wisdom aren’t genetic traits. You can judge candidates by family reputation, if you like, but when I vote on June 24th, it will be between two individuals.
Also, whether Chaffetz lives barely outside my district or not, he seems to represent my views a lot better than Cannon does. And, as for myself, what my Representative thinks is more important to me than where he lives. If you think otherwise, then so be it.
You may find Cannon’s voting record satisfactory, Jason, but he’s disappointed me many times, sadly. And what sort of legislation he supports and opposes, year after year, matters far more to me than how famous the Cannon name is or how the public generally perceives the Cannon family or how much seniority he’s accumulated or how many political connections he’s obtained for himself over time or how he chooses to spend his own money or whether he lives slightly outside my district or not or anything else.
Comment by Jason K. Vaughn on 10 June 2008:
Thanks for the comments, everyone. It’s nice to see the readership come out to communicate. However, I am still missing any merits regarding Chaffetz. Please provide something better than he’s a good guy. Especially those who spoke with these fine gentlemen personally, I am definitely interested in the details of your conversations. Some questions to possibly consider regarding the two.
1. Since Cannon is already quite in the limelight and the subject of “Let’s make a change by getting rid of Cannon and replacing him with Chaffetz,” what specifically has been unsatisfactory about Cannon’s voting record?
a. Why do you think his decision was unsatisfactory?
b. What principles did his decision break that has you upset?
c. Do you know the specifics of why he chose to vote that way, or are you simply assuming that you know more about it than he does, in spite of his being present for the actual debates, etc.?
d. Did you speak or write speicifically to Cannon to either find out his perspective or to rationally express your own?
e. What should Mr. Cannon have done based upon those principles to satisfy you? (Just answering with vote the other way is not satisfactory to this question.)
f. What merits do you know about Chaffetz that will indicate he will do any better? (Remember, change for change’s sake is pointless. If there is to be a change, it better be for good.)
2. What have either of these two gentlemen done outside of elective office (head of the tribe) that shows them as caring about the state of our nation?
3. If either of these candidates is not elected, what will they do to continue the cause of freedom?
4. Since Congress is such a large legislative body that relies upon more than just an individual walking in and casting a ballot in order to get a satisfactory result, what merits does Jason Chaffetz have that will offset his inexperience as a legislator and his lack of political connections back in Washington? (Negative statements about Cannon will not suffice in this question. What substantive matter does Chaffetz have that will offset his freshman status disadvantages in Congress?)
Like I said, Chaffetz is a smooth talker. He has memorized the party diatribe quite effectively. But once all the hot air is gone, there has to be something substantive. I have been unable personally to uncover the substance, and since I am not able to vote for this seat (I live in the same district as Chaffetz does), this is ultimately not for me but for those readers of this site who will have the opportunity to cast a ballot.
Again, thank you all for your comments. I’m excited to see the substance.
Jason Vaughn
Comment by Joel Nelson on 10 June 2008:
I didn’t document my conversations with either candidate. My questions were associated with their opinions of some specific topics and pieces of legislation and how there opinions about those topics were based in true principles. I didn’t document the answers to my questions, so I won’t misquote them. My questions were best used for determining for myself how they would represent me personally, so I suggest each person form their own questions and ask them. My questions to both of them were almost identical, but their respective responses were materially different. Jason Chaffetz responded rationally and clearly, while Chris Cannon responded as most politicians respond, by not responding directly to any specific question.
I highly recommend to everyone that you contact each candidate (whether in person, via email, or just via an old-fashioned letter) and ask those questions that would most effectively determine how well they might represent you. Both Jason Chaffetz and Chris Cannon has always responded to my sincere and intelligent questions, and I’m sure the same is true for almost all candidates. Visit both websites for more information on Jason Chaffetz and Chris Cannon.
http://www.jasonforcongress.com/
http://www.chriscannon.com/
Comment by Bradley Reneer on 12 June 2008:
Dear Jason Vaughn,
I appreciate your effort to be in touch with what the founders believed. Here is some additional information you’ll find interesting.
Maryland made a law, shortly after the Constitution was ratified, saying that a congressman had to be from the district where they lived. William McCreery was elected, in 1802, for a Maryland district where he did not reside. It was determined that the Maryland law violated the spirit and letter of the U.S. Constitution and McCreery was seated in the House.
A recent U.S. Supreme Court case (U. S. TERM LIMITS, INC., et al., PETITIONERS 93-1456 v. RAY THORNTON et al. WINSTON BRYANT, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ARKANSAS, PETITIONER 93-1828) relating to term limits reconfirmed the principle that representation can be from anywhere in the state.
In the court decision you can read that “Thomas Jefferson noted the argument that ‘to add new qualifications to those of the Constitution would be as much an alteration as to detract from them’;”
In a footnote to the court opinion. It discusses the related idea that “Money is not made a requisite.” An initial draft of the constitution included “property qualifications. . . . . The property provision was deleted, thus providing further evidence that the Framers wanted to minimize the barriers that would exclude the most able citizens from service in the National government.”
I consider Jason [Chaffetz] the “most able citizen” running in the 3rd Congressional race. Living in a different district is not opposed to either the letter nor the spirit of the U. S. Constitution.
I hope you’ll consider supporting him.
Comment by Jason K. Vaughn on 12 June 2008:
Bradley, Thank you for your input. The research on that is wonderful. I hope no one misconstrues my comments as stating that it is the law that a person must run for the congressional district in which he lives. As far as I could research the laws of Utah, I found no such thing. My conclusion was therefore not that Mr Chaffetz actions are against the rules, simply imprudent. My personal belief is that a person is best able to represent a district in which he lives. And while, yes, gerrymandering has made for some rather strange district bounderies, the bounderies are what they are for this time. Mr. Chaffetz’ decision to run in the 3rd District has made it so that even he cannot vote for himself, nor can his wife or his closest associates (his immediate neighbors)—arguably the people who should know him the best. This is the nature of my opinion that this is imprudent.
If Mr. Chaffetz really wanted to “make a difference” in Washington, it might have been better to attempt to create a situation in which his own party had a chance at regaining majority status. He might have done that by running in the 2nd District against Rep. Matheson, which, strategically, had he been successful at that, would have a net gain of 2 seats on the House floor (-1 for the Dems and +1 for the Reps.) Instead, he chose to run against one of the most conservative members of the House which, if he wins, will create a zero sum result. Another reason I believe Chaffetz’ decision was imprudent.
Thank you for your comment,
Jason Vaughn
Comment by Matthew Pilling on 17 June 2008:
After being elected a State Delegate for my precinct, I began to receive numerous mail pieces clearly delineating Chaffetz stances on several isssues. And, the answers he had always sounded right. I attended a few delegates meetings with Chaffetz and heard the exact same responses that I had seen in his mail pieces. While one would think that that would lead me to feel that he is consistent, it had a different effect. I felt that it was more rhetoric–carefully calculated answers on specifically chosen pet topics, memorized and polished for specific effect. Wondering if that was just my poor judgment of what he had to say, I decided to stay afterwards and ask a few questions. His answers to my questions seemed to be recitations of the same sound bits I had heard earlier. While he was consistent, he wasn’t convincing. (Mind you, I don’t think that Cannon is the world’s best public speaker, either, and he does struggle when asked questions on the spot.)
In sitting through his speeches a couple of times, there were a few other things that concerned me, as well:
1) Chaffetz’s demeanor seemed counterintuitive to his aims. He speaks a great deal about forming all sorts of conservative alliances once he gets to congress, yet his rock-the-boat, point out what you’re doing wrong personality didn’t do much to draw me in.
2) Chaffetz’s passion felt unrestrained. While we do need people who are passionate about the job (and more importantly, about the princiciples involved), his passion didn’t feel like the kind of passion that moves people and leads them to effect proper change. At best, it felt (to me) like hype to get people worked up into a frenzy (a little Obama-esque?). At worst, it felt like a little kid shouting about how things haven’t gone the way he wanted. Passion is needed, and Jason has it in spades. But without any control of that passion, he is likely to upset others, create a bad name/vibe for the policies he wants to push, and limit his abilities as a statesman. There is a difference between passion and the substance that Jason Vaughn refers to in his article. I, like Jason, have yet to see that substance in Mr. Chaffetz. I don’t think he’s a terrible person without any substance. I just haven’t seen anything that warrants a changing of the guard.
3) If Mr. Chaffetz does plan to form the alliances he has mentioned, why would he want to unseat the most likely member of Congress to participate in his alliances? Regardless of the boundary issues and of the candidate in the 2nd district, wouldn’t Chaffetz have an easier time convincing someone like Cannon to make minor modifications to the way that he sees things than trying to make alliances with more liberally-minded people? I don’t have issue with the constitutionality of running in a district other than the one in which you reside. But I do seriously question what the agenda could be when, in forming a team of like-minded individuals to accomplish specific aims, you would seek to remove the potential best player for that team who already has powerful connections with other great players for that team. How much more powerful would it be to have the 2 most conservative voting records in the whole house come from Utah’s 2nd and 3rd districts, rather than unseating the one, to replace it with the other? It just doesn’t add up for me. Does Chaffetz hold a personal vendetta against Cannon or the Cannon family (outside of this campaign)? Does he feel he has a better chance beating Cannon than he does beating Matheson? Is this race about effecting the changes he is touting, or is it about winning an election and holding a position? The argument isn’t about where he lives. It’s about how he plays the cards. I don’t think Cannon is perfect or as conservative as many of us would like him to be. But, I don’t see Chaffetz as being any better. In a government where you have to work with what you’ve got, it seems wrong to take some of the best of what we’ve got (comparatively speaking) and throw it out just to replace it with something similar. I think the best solution would have been to work together in neighboring districts. A little late for that one, though.
All in all, I don’t think either candidate will bring the end of the world to the 3rd district. Both have the capability to do a decent job. The defining difference is that one would be setting up shop, learning the ropes, and spending time forming alliances, while the other is alread equipped to do the same job from day one. You don’t pick candidates on seniority alone, but, all other factors being fairly equal, you don’t throw it out, either.
Comment by Ammon on 19 June 2008:
I’m not in District 3, so I won’t be voting for either Cannon or Chaffetz, instead I get to choose between the obvious socialist, and some other benevolent tyrant. Never the less I gained a lot of value and a better understanding of principles from this exchange. Thank you all for your input. Here’s my input which I value at least $0.02, you decide what it’s worth to you.
My first priority in choosing which candidate to vote for is how well do I believe that they will hold to what I consider are true principles if elected. In the case where there is very little difference, like Between Cannon and Chaffetz, or between Matheson and the Republican brand of socialist, I base my vote on strategically who will be better able to bring about principled ends. This is usually the incumbant since they have already been there at least one term and have had that time to build relationships and a network. However, I want to stress that this is only if the incumbent and any challengers are all relatively similar in how closely they follow principles. If there is little material difference, why make a change of the guard. A Democrat will be just as open to listening to my attempts to promote principles as a Republican - once they are in office.
I would only vote based on party as a last resort. IMVSIO, there is very little practical difference between the two parties. I can only see small strategic benefits possible varying between parties depending on where you live. If you live in a predominantly Republican district, it could potentially be more strategic to associate with Republicans. In a predominantly Democratic district, it could potentially be more strategic to associate with Democrats.
My advice to those who support Chaffetz: Examine if there is a material bewteen Chaffetz and Cannon, as it regards principle. If there is, you shouldn’t have any problems explaining it to others in terms that are more substantive than, “I liked his answers better.” or he’s “the most able citizen.”
In order for those comments to be substantive, you should be able to explain why Cannon’s answers were materially inferior, and why Cannon is a materially less able citizen.