A View From The Hill | Cao's stance on health care responsible and admirable

Editor's Note: This is an updated version of the article first published in print on Wednesday, Nov. 18.

The recent passage of H.R. 3962, "The Affordable Health Care for America Act," in the House has once again caused me to question the role elected representatives play in our democratic republic.

Although my sentiments could be nicely summarized by the signs I saw outside the Capitol during the many health care protests held in recent months, there is no use in repeatedly questioning the reasoning behind the bill's creation.

Providing Americans affordable health care is imperative if we are going to keep up with the rest of the world. While the economy may hinder health care reform now, we shouldn't give up on it permanently.

But enough about health care. It will pass in one form or another and its effects, both positive and negative, will not be measureable for years.

First and foremost, the passage of this bill questions the role that elected representatives play in our society. It solidifies the fact that I never want to hold a seat in the House or Senate because of the immense pressure that comes with the position.

The second biggest story the morning after the bill passed featured the one lone Republican from Louisiana who had crossed over to the "dark side" and voted in favor of the health care act. Rep. Anh "Joseph" Cao was instantly thrown into the political spotlight after he cast his "yea" amidst a sea of conservative "nays."

Allegations circulated that Cao was merely seeking reelection, amongst other rumors. However, few are aware of his political background or demographic of the area he represents in Louisiana.

Cao has only been a Republican since 2007. He entered politics as an Independent and also as a citizen concerned about landfills in his home district. Cao rose up to represent his neighbors' concerns and eventually ascended to the House as the first Vietnamese American through a special election involving a tainted incumbent and a political upset. Cao represents a district where a majority of the residents are minorities and registered Democrats.

Hence, the only answer he could provide to shocked Republicans after he pushed the green button in the House gallery was that he was merely channeling the wants of his constituents and their call for health care reform. This raises a very ominous question. To whom should representatives answer: their party, their coalitions, or their constituents?

The Federalist Papers and documents created during the Constitutional Era would argue that representatives should act on behalf of their constituents. At the time the Constitution was written and signed, political parties were still in their infancy, so party loyalty would have been a foreign concept to the Founding Fathers.

So why are we shocked when elected officials break the mold and vote for the wishes of citizens against their party's will? Maybe it is time for the parties to change and fit the needs of the people, not the other way around.

If I had a dollar for every time I heard someone in Washington, D.C., claim that Cao is just seeking reelection, I would not have to look for a side job next semester. Is it such a bad thing to want to be reelected? Representatives are obviously meeting most of the needs of their constituents if they are successfully reelected. Whether a representative's intentions are selfish or not, it is a win-win for both groups.

Yet, so often it seems people in Congress are attempting to please people in their parties, not their districts. Obviously coalitions within one's party are important and the results they produce do help constituents. But I wonder if we have taken the importance of party identification too seriously.

According to many studies, party identification is growing weaker as the years pass. The reality in Congress is quite the opposite. The polarizing (and paralyzing) power of the parties is evident in both chambers, especially when issues such as health care and the environment call for governmental reform.

Although these views that call for the restructuring of political parties' objectives may be idealistic rather than realistic, it can't be far-fetched to request some sort of balance from Congress, especially on matters as important as health care.