Introduction
To undertake a study of representation in politics, involves a broader and deeper study into the responsiveness of the individual or group that is involved. To give a theoretical explanation for representation or responsiveness, for that matter, will constitute a very unbalanced approach to the study of any democracy in the world. Richard Fenno in his book, Congress at the Grassroots, has made a fairly successful attempt at providing an unbiased view of not only two politicians, but has also described in great detail the changing face of America’s voting populace. The political careers of Jack Flynt and Mac Collins, the former a Democrat and the latter a Republican, are indicative of the changes that occurred between 1950s and the 1990s.
Points of discussion
This essay aims at presenting answers to the following issues:
- The similaries and differences in Jack Flynt’s reelection and primary constituencies between his transitional (pre-1972) and his new district (1972-1976).
- The closeness of the 1974 and 1976 reelection contests for Jack Flynt?
- The points of contrast between Jack Flynt’s most recent reelection and primary constituencies with those of Mac Collins.
To present insights into each of these issues individually, would throw up a few inconsistencies both in terms of chronology as well as in content. Therefore, a comprehensive view of all three points mentioned above, is being adapted to present a more structured and sequential approach to the whole issue.
Jack Flynt – the people’s man
To find a single term to describe a person as effervescent as Jack Flynt, is certainly not an easy proposition. Born into a family that was raised on politics and fed on the culture of the Southern States, Flynt had very definitive views on most issues – the only point being that he rarely pronounced these views in public. His approach to politics was based more on what the common man wanted rather than the Democratic view of issues that were in vogue at the time. He adopted the person-next-door approach, in the firm belief that that was the only way to retain the trust and thereby the votes of the people he chose to represent. His entire career was based on the empathy that he demonstrated for the problems of the people he represented. He believed that in order to win he needed to be on a first-name basis with practically the whole of his constituency. This was an achievable proposition in the beginning, but ceased to be so, in course of time.
Changing face of the districts
When Flynt started his political career, he was able to maintain his personal approach largely because of the geographical features of the area that he represented. The people he represented were bound together by common causes and had more or less the same views on varying issues. He ensured that he targeted the people who mattered in his area – such as the owners of textile factories, the heads of banks and other leading members of the society whose ideas would have a bearing on the collective views of the people he represented. His constant interaction with the members of his constituency was the bedrock of his political career.
This however came under a lot of pressure toward the mid seventies, with the emergence of the New South. With the redistricting that took place, Flynt suddenly found himself representing a much larger and more heterogeneous group of people. Now he had to contend with getting to know a greater number of people and also restructuring his political agenda. However, it must be mentioned here that it was his political insightfulness that eventually saw him through difficult times.
Re-election – a close call
When Newt Gingrich materialized as the new face of the Democrats, Flynt was so thoroughly wrapped up in his own old-word-politics that he chose to ignore that there could be a challenge to his candidature. It was only a little late in the day that he realised that Gingrich could pose a real threat to his political career. As has been common in most democracies, the battle for the throne was an ugly one. To call each other fellow-Democrats was not only euphemistic but downright hypocritical as well. The vitriolic exchange between Flynt and Gingrich gave the southerners a taste of what politics could really be like – malicious, dirty and a power-mongering exercise, incapable of bringing forth any positive development. In his own hometown of Spalding, Flynt had earlier been able to secure a landslide victory, but now with the redistricting that took place, popularity in Clayton County, looked like a distant dream.
Flynt had no choice but to spend huge amounts of money to achieve the victory that he wanted, albeit a narrow one. His re-election was one that he had personally taken for granted. This mistake proved to be quite costly as he won the re-election with an extremely narrow margin.
A few contentious issues
Flynt’s electoral plank had hitherto been for and with the people, but now he had to look at things quite differently. Issues had now become more important. For instance his views on racial segregation were very definitive. Being a southerner, with a strong bonding with the people he grew up with, he remained quite conservative in his approach to Blacks. He was clearly against the removal of segregation laws, something that created a rift among other Democrats. It was the same when it came to more progressive issues such as equal rights for women. His brush with a powerful newspaper, the Atlanta Constitution, was yet another litigious issue. These factors could probably be the reasons behind the slow but steady decline of Flynt’s political career.
Mac Collins – the man, his politics
Mac Collins’ background was largely different from that of Flynt. He had no early political ambitions and was a successful businessman, before he entered the political arena. Though he had his eyes on the electorate, he did not move towards them with the personal approach that was Flynt’s hallmark. Further, he gave a great deal of importance to expansionist plans, which he believed would improve the quality of life not only for the individual, but also signal a level of development on all fronts.
The Flynt – Collins divide/link
Mac Collins, a former Democrat did share some of Flynt’s views on subjects like race, abortion, crime and so on. To a person studying the changing political face of America in general and the southern states in particular, this might be an intriguing matter. It was indeed a strange phenomenon to have a Democrat have similar views as a Republican. Richard Fenno’s description of their views lead us to take a closer look at how the political changes that took place in Georgia proved to be indicators of those sweeping across the country as a whole.
While studying the comparisons and contrasts between Flynt and Collins, one is forced to look also at partisan politics at the time. It is also important to understand the contribution of Gingrich at this point. Though, Fenno has not concentrated a great deal on this particular political player, there is no doubt that he contributed a great deal to the decline and eventual death of Flynt’s political career and also set the tone for Collins’ entry onto the political stage, as well.
Conclusion
To a student of Political Science today, it is difficult to pigeonhole Flynt and Mac Collins as Democrat and Republican respectively. There seems to be an overlapping of political ideologies that mirrored the changing political climes of the seventies and nineties. It would not be incorrect to say that the relevance of each of the politicians was deep-rooted; they were astute enough to understand the requirements of the changing political landscape and adapt themselves accordingly.
Though it is commonly known that Flynt clung on to his mantle with fierce (and sometimes blind) determination, it is true that he finally came to terms with the fact that issues are as important as people and that one needs to take a firm stand at some point in time. Fenno’s book brings out the changing levels of trust that the electorate has in their representatives. Empathy and responsiveness have certainly given way to issue-based politics, where the average politician’s final goal is Washington first and the electorate, second.
References
Fenno, Richard F. Jr. Congress at the Grassroots: Representational Change in the South.
1970-1998. Chapel Hill, NC. University of North Carolina Press. 2000.