Pork-barrel politics

Pork-barrel politics refers to the appropriation of government expenditure by elected representatives in order to directly benefit their constituents. Regardless of their political colors, members of Congress routinely support programs that benefit their electors in some way. For instance, a fiscal conservative from the mid-West will often support government spending on their constituents despite an ideological preference for smaller government. This may take the form of agricultural subsidies. Similarly, a Republican from Virginia may well place their fiscal conservatism to one side when seeking funds for the military (Virginia is the home of the Pentagon and is the most heavily dependent on military expenditure of any state in the union). However, there is no better illustration of this point than road building. These are often favored by both sides of the political spectrum because the construction of such roads can be designed in order to benefit the greatest number of constituents. Once more, it is mercifully free of ideological baggage. Even a strident TP’er might acknowledge the obvious political benefits of road building with public funds.

Pork-barrel politics is the direct consequence of congressional members being too responsive to what the folks want back home. For obvious reasons, this is more noticeable within the lower chamber. It may also be more overt during the run-up to an election. Government projects also have a propensity towards benefitting key supporters, such as a particular social group within society. For example, a liberal Democrat representing an inner-city area has every incentive to secure government funding or support for schemes that favor ethnic minorities. This in part reflects the character of the American system itself. When an elected representative must face the verdict of the people once every two years, then they must focus upon gaining tangible benefits for their constituents. In effect, the people are the employers of the congressional member. If the people want benefits from ‘Uncle Sam,’ then those elected to serve have every incentive to provide it. Any politician who swims against the tide of public opinion puts themselves in a potentially dangerous situation.

Any critique offered about Congress will inevitably highlight pork-barrel politics. Few examples have quite caught the public’s attention in recent times as that of the ‘Bridge to Nowhere’ in Alaska. Congress agreed to a program which entailed building a bridge in Ketchika to the island of Gravina. Although it was never actually built, the Bridge to Nowhere became emblematic of congressional pork. Perhaps a better example to consider though is the Cornhusker kickback secured by Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska. This conservative Democrat managed to gain special concessions for Medicaid in his home state in order that the administration could secure Nelson's personal support for Obamacare. Nelson had threatened to filibuster the bill with the support of Republicans in the Senate. As a footnote, he chose not to contest his seat in 2012 and was replaced by the conservative Republican Deb Fischer in part due to his association with a relatively unpopular scheme in a traditionally red state.

No understanding of pork-barrel politics would be complete without a reflection upon the terms peanut butter politics and horse-trading. The former refers to the practice of spreading taxpayer’s money around from one district to the next. In doing so, elected representatives can allocate pork on a more efficient vote-gathering basis. The aforementioned road building is a good illustration of this phenomenon. Horse(or log)-trading occurs when members of Congress trade support on various bills in return for the safe passage of measures that specifically benefit their constituents. Bargains might therefore be reached between members from opposing parties on the basis of ‘you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours.’ As a consequence, members of Congress will little or no shared ideological ground may work together in order to help secure their re-election.

Nothing exposes the inherent contradictions of the American system of governance than that of pork-barrel politics. The public are unmistakably hostile towards the practice, and yet voters consistently re-elect those representatives who provide pork to their constituents. An incumbent who brings home such benefits will often gain another term in office. Those that don't run the risk of being removed from office by a disgruntled local electorate who regularly acts in a different manner to what they might say to opinion pollsters. If the public truly gets the politicians it deserves, then pork-barrel politics is surely a reason for that.

As with much else that ails the American system, the prospects for reform seem unlikely. Both politicians and the public believe that they benefit in some manner from the status quo, or at the very least no achievable alternative exists. Until people refuse to support congressional members that engage in pork-barrel politics, the practice looks set to remain. Indeed, it seems credible to argue that a sizeable number of voters are content with – or at least resigned to – the status quo. The American system of governance, for all its lofty rhetoric; is characterized less by heady enthusiasm and more by a sense of hapathy amongst its populace.