House of Cards is a television show about the inner workings of Washington D.C. The show follows Frank Underwood, a democratic congressman from South Carolina and the House majority whip. Frank is in charge of getting legislation passed through the house and, as a result, finds himself in numerous conflicts. One particular conflict arose over an education bill.
Frank Underwood was instructed by the President to craft an education bill and get it passed the house as quickly as possible. In order to accomplish this, Frank had to get the support of the teacher's unions and their head lobbyist, Marty Spinella. Marty wanted the bill to not include performance standards for teachers. Frank and Marty almost came to an agreement, but Frank had to return to his district to deal with a political foe trying to take his seat. Marty had to keep the teachers at the negotiation table but not having Frank physically at the negotiations put a lot of strain on Marty. Marty grew more upset the longer Frank was back in South Carolina. When Frank finally returns to Washington, Marty realized he included an amendment on collective bargaining and that Frank had lied to him. Marty decides to organize a nationwide strike with teachers to pressure Frank to meet their demands. Frank participates in a few sketchy tactics, including framing Marty's people for throwing a brick through his window, to undermine Marty and make the teachers look bad. The conflict comes to a peak when Frank calls Marty in for a meeting to resume negotiations over the education bill. However, when Marty arrives to the negotiation, he finds Frank unwilling to negotiate. Frank tries to get under Marty's skin by using a few choice words and it works. Marty punches Frank in the face, which is a felony because he is a US congressman. Frank threatens to report Marty unless he agrees to the bill as it stands, which Marty does, thus ending the conflict.
The source of the problem that causes this conflict starts with Frank leaving the negotiation table while negotiations were going on about the education bill. Frank had to leave in order to protect his seat in Congress. Marty did not understand why a district matter would take precedence over a very important education bill. Marty became rather upset with Frank due to his absence. Frank should have done a better job explaining to the teachers, as well as Marty, why he had to leave the negotiations. If he had thoroughly explained his absence then there would have been less tension and this conflict wouldn't have escalated as it did. Frank also could sent a member of his team in his place or another congressmen, these actions would of kept Marty and the teachers happy.
The conflict escalated when Marty figured out the bill had a collective bargaining amendment added. Frank had told Marty he would include any such amendment so Marty was livid. Marty sees this action by Frank as very disrespectful and he started a nationwide strike over it. Frank realized what he was doing, tricking Marty in order to get a bill that served his interests. The public sided with the teachers on their strike and Congress, the President and Frank lost favor with the American people.
The conflict ended due to Frank manipulating Marty into assaulting him. Marty knew what Frank was trying to get him to do but he did it anyway. By assaulting Frank, Marty had no choice but to agree to any bill that Frank wanted to enter the House. Frank may have made some mistakes along the way in this conflict but he got what he wanted at the end. I think the source of the conflict definitely could have been avoided but the conflict benefitted Frank. I believe that Frank was going to try and make an education bill that served his interests the most from the beginning. The conflict could have taken on a different look and maybe not have ended in such a literally breaking point, but there always was going to have to be a conflict.
I haven't seen the show. So my reaction here is not on your analysis of it, but rather on how appropriate an example it provides. It does seem like a conflict between Frank and Marty. So that part fits, but should we view Frank and Marty to be within the same organization? Is a political party and its primary set of constituents properly thought of that way? I'm inclined to think the answer to that is now.
ReplyDeleteNow a different angle at what you're talking about, based on my reading of national politics. You can array the parties on a left-right spectrum and can do likewise within each party. Quite regularly I read pieces by pundits who argue that a politician within a party move to the center (and thereby get constituents at the extreme upset with them). Naturally, the constituents who feel disenfranchised by the move are upset with the politician for doing what politicians do. If everything else is above board, however, there is disappointment, but not necessarily conflict.
Conflict arises when some of the tactics appear unethical and that the other side is being heavy handed in playing things out. Then, in the language of the movie the Godfather, things have move from business to personal. As long as its business, it's okay. Once it's become personal, that crossed the line.
I would argue that at the beginning that Frank and Marty were working together to accomplish a common goal. Technically, Marty was working for the teacher's unions and Frank was working for the Democratic party but they both had the goal of getting the education bill passed. Frank and Marty had worked together in the past and they were well on their way to successfully agreeing to the stipulations of the education bill. It wasn't until Marty realized that Frank had lied to him that the conflict really heated up. Both of their respective organizations had assigned them to work together and the conflict arose from this partnership. I tend to agree with your argument that a political party and their constituents are not in part of one organization. When politicians go against the wishes or beliefs of their constituents, the latter are definitely disappointed, but could they turn that disappointment into a conflict. If an elected official supports interests that aren't aligned with the interests of their constituents, they can get flooded with angry phone calls. The angry constituents can protest and advertise against the politician and eventually get the politician out of office by supporting their opponents. The politician isn't in an organization with the constituents but conflicts can still spring up between the two.
ReplyDelete