Most government can be divided into layers (e.g. "local", state & federal), each of which serves a vastly different constituency.
- Members of my city council serve within a very limited jurisdiction (even though it is ~213 square miles in size) and are expected to adequately represent my interests within that jurisdiction. Comparatively, they are not holden to a very large constituency and they need only concern themselves with what is in the best interest of the city in the eyes of its citizenry.
- On the state level of government, we vote for a number of individuals. State Senators & State Representatives represent a certain geographic area, often based on population, within a larger sphere of policy making. Other elected officials such as the governor, attorney general & secretary of state may come from a certain area, but they are expected to act in the best interest of the state - not just the area they hail from (as opposed to State Senators / Representatives).
- Finally, in the Federal Government, we see a pattern similar to that of the state, but on a far larger scale. U.S. Senators are chosen from the state as a whole to represent their views on the national stage. While they are expected to represent the views of their constituents, they are responsible for the running of the nation as a whole - a fact they should never lose sight of. U.S. Representatives, similar to Senators, are chosen to represent their constituents (from a smaller, defined region than that of the entire state) on the national stage, but again, they should be cognizant of the fact that they too are responsible for the well being of the nation as a whole. Mirroring the role of the governor, the President comes from one particular area, but is expected to act in the best interest of the whole - not just their home area.
With this said, it appears as though a trend is developing. At more local levels of government, representation seems to play a more noticable role, but as the officials become holden to a larger constituency - not just those who elected them - stewardship seems to become more prominent. This is not to say that one ever truly eliminates the other. Rather, they sit at opposite ends of a continuum & are blended together in a ratio that best serves the largest population they are responsible for.
On the local levels, with a smaller "greater good" to consider, it seems as though it would be easier to do as the constituents want - as their views should be more in tune with what is in the best interest of the total area represented by their officials. However, as the constituency becomes broader, stewardship seems to play a greater role.
The Distinguished Gentleman from Ohio may be well aware of his constituents' view that XYZ Missile Defense Site should be located in their district, as it would bring them an influx of new (much needed) jobs. However, the Gentleman is aware of the maximum effective range of said Missile Defense System and that if situated in Ohio, it cannot provide the same level of protection to the nation as if it were located further north in say, North Dakota. While his constituents expect him to represent their view and bring them needed jobs, the nation as a whole is dependent on his ability to act in her (the nation's) best interest.
At this point, I merely hope to present the view that Representation & Stewardship are not exactly mutually exclusive, but rather opposite ends on a continuum. As such, each plays a role in the decisions made by the official, but the relative value of each changes based on the level of government that the official operates in.
Next week, Part 3 in this series will look at the differences between those who are elected to their position and those who are appointed or employed as career bureaucrats and whether or not there is a difference in their ratio of Representation to Stewardship.
