Home Style And Washington Career

Introduction

The pursuit of political careers has been a dream of many people. This is especially in the case of individuals that feel that they have the capacity to make fundamental changes in the lives of other people through making laws and ensuring that they are properly and effectively implemented in their areas of jurisdiction. However, it is well noted that individuals that successfully obtain political power undergo fundamental changes in their way of dealing with issues. This is essentially the key point in the article “Home Style and Washington Career” by Richard F Fenno.

In this article, Fenno underlines the fact that congressmen in the United States are always struggling to find a balance between the Washington career and constituency career. The constituency career revolves around efforts to enhance their chances of being reelected whereas the Washington career revolves around coming up with good public policy and becoming influential in the house. Underlining the changes that congressmen undergo is the fact that in the initial years in the House, they are always attending to their constituents’ needs. This is because they have limited chances of gaining inside policy and power influence, in which case they can allocate their resources to their constituency career without any sense of conflict. Nevertheless, the beginning of a Washington career necessitates a change in the congressman’s personal goals, as well as the established home style. Fenno notes that the dilemma that faces congressmen emanates from the requirement that the United States Congress serves as a legislative and a representative institution.

However, Fenno presents one formula that would be effective in solving the dilemma especially in instances where the congressmen are attaining more influence in their Washington careers and in policymaking. The congressmen could ask their constituents to adopt a new set of expectations, especially considering that the policies that their congressman is pursuing would be for their own good. Indeed, their seniority, effectiveness and influence in Washington would eventually benefit their constituents, in which case the congressmen’s supporters should intensify their support so as to ward off any challengers. However, this can often be problematic as in pursuit of power and influence that comes with a Washington career, a legislator would essentially lose touch with the supportive constituents at his backyard, thereby spelling doom to his reelection bid.

Alternatively, a congressman could manage the balance through winning support on areas that he had not won such support. He could use his influence to make policies that would appeal to new supporters even as he or she loses the old supporters. The influence in particular policy area or as an effective legislator may generate such feedback effects. Unfortunately, the individuals are faced by the dilemma even upon living the congress. They must decide whether to stay in Washington or go back to their home constituencies.

While the article is comprehensive and well-thought out, it creates the impression that the dilemma is a liability to the congressmen. This may be slightly wrong especially considering that the legislators are elected in the hope that they will seek to serve their needs. Congressmen, essentially, are intended to offer their services to the entire constituency, in which case the maintenance of a Washington career and home style forces them to act to the best interests of their constituents and truly serve them. The deficiency of fear of failure to recapture their seats may give them an incentive to tend for their needs only.