Americanship v. Political Powership

I wrote about this back in March 2017, but it's time to revisit this historic time in bipartisan politics.

Fall of 2000. It was a tumultuous time in American politics. The November election had resulted in close votes, hanging chads, contested elections, recounts, court challenges, uncertainty, protests, and public unrest. 

The country was deeply divided. Following weeks of uncertainty after the election, George W. Bush was finally pronounced the winner when he received only 537 more votes than Al Gore in a Florida recount. The controversial recount finally ended with a U.S Supreme Court 5-4 split decision to stop the vote recounting and overruling a 4-3 Florida Supreme Court split decision in favor of Gore. That gave Bush 271 Electoral College votes compared to Al Gore's 266; but, Gore received over 540,000 more popular votes than Bush. Adding to the deep political division of the country, Ralph Nader, the Green Party candidate received a total of over 2,800,000 popular votes, drawing them away from the primary candidates. The level of national unrest and divisiveness among the American electorate could not have been higher.
  

If it all sounds familiar, it is. And, American politics has never quite been the same since. Further, similarities on top of the dramatic Presidential race arise in the fact that the down-ballot U.S. Senate races resulted in a 50-50 split between Republicans and Democrats. A situation that could easily repeat itself depending on the results of two runoff elections in Georgia in early January 2021.

Washington politicos were in a tizzy. How would they govern? How would the public react to such a narrow and disputed margin of power when Gore actually won the popular vote and the contentious Supreme Court involvement? There were calls for compromise, bipartisanship and getting the parties to work together. Bush's VP Dick Cheney could break what was at the time thought to be numerous tie votes, but what would be the public reaction?

In the midst of the confusion and uncertainty, Senate leaders Tom Daschle (D-SD) and Trent Lott (R-MS) worked diligently through the Thanksgiving and Christmas holiday season to craft a remarkable and unprecedented "powersharing agreement" based on what they said was the concept of trust and bipartisanship. Among other items, the agreement provided for Republican chairs of all Senate committees after January 20, 2001; equal party representation on all Senate committees; equal division of committee staffs and operating budgets between the parties; procedures for discharging measures blocked by tie votes in committee; a restriction on the offering of cloture motions on amendable matters; restrictions on floor amendments offered by party leaders; eligibility of Senators from both parties to preside over the Senate; and general provisions seeking to reiterate the equal interest of both parties in the scheduling of Senate chamber business.   

At a press conference, Senator Lott said, "nobody can win on 51 votes. . . [it's] not what the American people expect from us". The full Senate (including then Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE)) approved the agreement by voice vote without objection and Daschle and Lott praised it as "miraculous", "historic", “a big down payment on the bipartisanship”, “a serious dose of reality”, “a framework for bipartisanship, nonpartisanship, Americanship.” Despite the many accolades, the agreement only survived for five months when the politicians quickly traded its many advantages for a few percentage points of political power as one member switched parties resulting in a 51-49 split. One has to ask, why do Americans have to sacrifice miraculous, historic, reality, bipartisanship, nonpartisanship and above all Americanship for a few votes of political powership?

From the Congressional Record, January 5, 2001, (107th Congress, 1st Session Issue: Vol. 147, No. 3 — Daily Edition). Senators Tom Daschle (D-SD) and Trent Lott (R-MS) on the Senate Floor discussing Senate Resolution 8, The Powersharing Agreement. [See the full text] The agreement was expanded by a leadership colloquy on January 8, 2001.

Mr. DASCHLE. The other day, I quoted the writer Thomas Wolfe who said: 

America is not only the place where miracles happen, they happen all the time.

If the resolution I will soon introduce is not miraculous, it is, at the very least, historic. It is also fair and reasonable. The details and the spirit of this agreement, which I expect the Senate to pass later today, should enable us to conduct our Nation's first 50/50 Senate in a most productive and bipartisan manner.

I especially thank the Republican leader, Senator Lott. We will enter into a colloquy in a period of time to be later determined, but I must say, without his leadership and his sense of basic fairness, this agreement would not have come about. He and I have spent many hours over the last several months, and now weeks, and certainly in the last several days, negotiating the details of this agreement. He spent many more hours consulting with the members of his caucus about it. He and they deserve credit for taking this unprecedented step. . .

Our negotiations involve many difficult issues and many strongly held opinions. Neither party got everything it wanted. Both sides made concessions. Both caucuses made principled compromises. That is the essence of democracy.

This agreement accurately reflects the historic composition of the Senate. More important, I believe it reflects the political thinking of the American people. It calls for equal representation on Senate committees. Every committee would have the same number of Republicans and Democrats. And it specifies that Republicans will chair the committees after January 20. It allows for equal budgets and office space for both caucuses, at 50/50.

One of the most vexing questions we struggled with during our negotiations was how to break ties when committees are divided equally. We have agreed that in the event of a tie vote, either leader can move to discharge a bill or nomination. The Senate will then debate the motion to discharge for four hours, and that time will be equally divided. There will then be a vote on the motion. If the motion passes, the bill or nomination would be placed on the calendar.

Similarly, the resolution allows committee Chairs to discharge a subcommittee in the case of a tie vote and place the legislative item or nomination on the full committee agenda.

We arrived at this process after much thinking and exchange of ideas. Senator Lott has been concerned that equal representation on the committees could lead to gridlock. While I do not share that concern, I believe this was a fair concession to get this agreement. . .

Today's agreement makes a big downpayment on the bipartisanship we owe our country. Democrats and Republicans made significant concessions, putting the national interest first and putting party aside. . .

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wouldn't say this is my preferred result, but I think it is a reasonable one with a serious dose of reality. We have work to do and we need to begin it now, not in a week or two or three or four. We need to conclude the assignment of our Members to the all important committees that will be having hearings on the nominees. . .

I would prefer to have a clear advantage on every committee and a clear advantage number-wise on everything. While that is preferable, it is not the reality. . .

What we have here, as difficult as it may make life for us, as difficult as it may be for our committee members and our chairmen and ranking members to make this situation work, it is going to require additional work, but it can be done. It is going to force us to work together more than we have in the past. No doubt. I do not think that is bad. I think this is a framework for bipartisanship. There has been a lot of talk about that word, and I am sure there are some people in this city, in this Chamber, who smirk at that, laugh at that. People across America are saying: I have heard enough of that; let's get some results here. . .

It is a framework to see if we really mean it. It can force us to live up to the truest and best meaning of that word-- nonpartisanship, Americanship, that is what we ought to call it--to find a way to get to these issues. . .

This is a classic case of extending the hand of friendship, of good faith. Will it lead to tremendous accomplishments or will that hand of friendship be bitten or the posterior kicked by one side or the other? It could, but we have to start from a position of good faith and reach out and say we are going to make this work.

If it does not work, then the American people will see. If these 50/50 committees do not function, then we can talk about obstructionism, and one way or the other, the American people will know who is trying to make it work and who is stalling it. If we come to this floor and have a debate on a tax bill and it passes this Senate by whatever number and does not get to conference or is tied up in conference or is killed in conference, do you think the American people are going to stand for that? I do not think so. We cannot let that happen. [emphasis added]

On May 24, 2001, Republican James Jeffords left the party to become an Independent and began caucusing with the Democrats, thus breaking the 50/50 party split in the Senate. While it only lasted five months, the discussion above is refreshing in today’s extreme, mega polarized Congressional and public atmosphere. There are many lessons to be learned here and we should reflect on the words.

Yes, it's a different time with many different actors. President-elect Joe Biden has promised to try to work with Republicans and get things done in a cooperative and bipartisan way. It is a statesman-like aspiration and endeavor that many would call foolhardy, unrealistic and untenable in today's political environment. 

The 2001 shared power agreement and its rationale may provide a beginning point for discussion of the need to change the committee power structure that currently exists and is doomed to produce one-sided solutions to exceedingly complex problems and issues. The current debate over a nationwide health care system is a great example. What good does it do if one party narrowly passes a comprehensive health care plan by a couple of votes that is then overturned or gutted with the next transition of political power a few years later. 

We keep repeating this senseless act of governance over and over in a political environment that could not be more divided and appears to be entering a new era of obscurity and darkness. Former President Barack Obama recently said something to the effect that our politics have ventured into a new space where not only do politicians spread lies and misinformation without consequences; but, truth itself no longer matters. 

With this as a starting point for the new President, the idea of working cooperatively to devise bipartisan solutions to the great issues of our time becomes dubious at best. It will take a masterful degree of wizardry and communication skills to create a foundation to even begin discussions along these lines. Hopefully President Biden can tap his own years of political experience and construct a governing nucleus by appealing to the more reasoned and informed members of both parties. Additionally he can seek out influencers outside of Congress and input from seasoned party elders that have viewed the current state of affairs and can assist by sharing their insights and positions of leadership to communicate to their political constituencies and the public. I have suggested various powersharing ideas on this blog.

The bottom line as I have said before, what is our choice? We either work together or we settle for continued political chaos, massive unrest and riotous division among the populous. Additionally, nothing is accomplished; problems go unresolved; and our international reputation is diminished to the largest banana republic on the globe. We need to reflect on the words of our very first President in 1785, when he commented on a similar troubling time, "We are either a United people or we are not. If the former, let us, in all matters of general concern act as a nation... If we are not, let us no longer act a farce by pretending it."

Backgrounder Document: Congressional Research Service Report RS20785. The Senate Powersharing Agreement of the 107th Congress (2001-2003): Key Features

"Crisis Point" - Sen. Tom Daschle & Trent Lott discuss their January 2016 book. 

New Rules To "Discourage and Restrain"

 New Rules To "Discourage and Restrain" 

If you have followed this blog you know that my focus has been on the dysfunctionality of the United States Congress; a critical element in the three-pronged governance structure of American democracy as established in the Constitution. It has been my contention that Congress sets and controls the tone for our political discourse. ​O​f course the President is a key contributor, however, a rationally functioning Congress has the power through its "checks & balances" and oversight responsibilities to correct or override a bad acting President.

No matter who's President, little if anything good gets accomplished as long as Congressional gridlock and dysfunction persist. T​he survival of the Trump Party ​will be tested in November, but we must remember the gridlock and dysfunction that was present before Trump will not magically disappear. The country will still be divided after Trump and it will take many years for our political system to evolve with the ever changing demographics of the country.

Congress receives extensive media attention and the general public is constantly exposed to the various characters that represent the public and their behaviors. In fact, a recent poll confirms that, "Most Americans think divisiveness is driven from the top down, by leaders, and not driven by the public itself" [https://tinyurl.com/y4kehpea]. In a deeply divided nation, with the political power oscillating narrowly between the parties and chambers, the extreme ends of both parties have had the loudest voice and perpetuated rhetoric that has become increasingly contentious, disrespectful and polarizing. 

Congress is the mechanism that is supposed to provide a “check and balance” on our political direction. Congress -- the House of Representatives and the United States Senate; both Democrats and Republicans -- have so misused and distorted their responsibilities that the nation is now left without the ability to make even basic decisions or provide the oversight necessary for the survival of our country and the democracy itself [https://tinyurl.com/wsmq55o].

The Founders warned us some 240 years ago [https://tinyurl.com/y27gaj3g], and were seriously worried whether the democracy could withstand the relentless influence and power of political parties. They used terms such as "evil" and indicated that the instincts, the "spirit of party" were "inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind." They said the turbulence of those passions in party disputes were so strong that party victory would be more important than truth or right itself. Their predictions have now become the new reality of American government.

Somehow, despite the overwhelming passions for party and political power the nation has survived over the years. But like a slow motion train wreck it has degenerated to its current state of near total dysfunction.  While the Founders were prophetic in their warnings and vision of possible failure of the democracy they were crafting, they ultimately granted too much power and authority to the very political parties that they feared.

In what maybe one of the most insightful visions into the future ever, George Washington warned in this farewell address in 1796: 

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

"Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. . ."

​Unfortunately​, the Founders did not include in the Constitution a mechanism that would "discourage and restrain" the behaviors​ and practices of political parties which they feared the most.​ Instead, in a serious error of judgement, counter to their own inclinations, they made the faulty assumption that Congress would act in the best interest of the country and citizens. They simply said in Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution that, "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.”  

[See, Constitution Annotated for Article I, Section 5, Clause 2: Rule of Proceedings for legal interpretations and citations https://tinyurl.com/y6jnqt7q] ​

So the dysfunctional, tribalistic gridlock that we find ourselves in today is really self-imposed and is the product of years of political maneuvering, manipulation and tweaking of the rules of operation. ​As citizens we want, need and deserve better. Congress, in general, is not responsive to the wishes of large majorities of the population (e.g. gun control, health care, witnesses in the impeachment trial​, policing reforms, mail voting, additional economic stimulus, wearing masks, child care, restrictions on lobbying,​ etc.). 

​"Nearly 75 percent of Americans, regardless of political affiliation, think there is more common ground among the public than the media and politicians portray, according to a Public Agenda report​, Divisiveness and Collaboration in American Public Life [https://tinyurl.com/y4kehpea​].​​ The report on polling conducted one year ago indicates that, "Americans also view political leadership as a central factor that exacerbates divisiveness — and that could help to reduce it.​ [and express]  ​. . .​a powerful yearning from Americans across all party lines for a more collaborative brand of politics that moves the country forward.​"​

​Interestingly, the report also indicates that, "Both Republicans and Democrats indicate that they could imagine finding common ground with about half of people who identify with the opposing party. Republicans and Democrats also see about a quarter of those in their own parties as so extreme they could not imagine finding common ground with them.​"​

​

Congress has proven time and again that it is not capable of determining its ​own ​"Rules of Proceedings" for the good of the country​.​ ​Instead the rules are twisted and designed to benefit ​the party in power​, preserve the party structure and discourage alternatives. ​A new Constitutional Amendment offers a great opportunity to correct this serious oversight of the Founders which is the cause of much of the gridlock and dysfunction of the Congressional system. A new Amendment MUST include some basic ground rules of operation that ​could only be amended with​,​ for example​,​ a ​three quarters (​3/4 ​) ​vote​ of the House or Senate or both, depending on the specific rule​.

Obviously a new Amendment cannot include all of the details of a system of new "rules of proceeding" but it can mandate a process for creating such rules and defining how they relate to the Constitutional requirements of Article I, Section 5. To translate this concept into proposed Constitutional amendment language I would offer as a starting point something like the following:

Proposed Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

 "Section __. There is established in the legislative branch an independent, National Commission On Congressional Rules, whose purpose shall be to review, revise, amend and establish baseline rules of proceedings for the U.S. House and Senate to fulfill the requirements of Article I, Section 5. The Commission shall establish rules of proceedings designed to establish rational, unbiased decision making and to encourage true bipartisanship in fulfilling the Congressional responsibilities in developing legislation, conducting Executive branch oversight and exercising its review and approval functions. Congress shall enact enabling legislation for the establishment of the Commission."

[Note: As a possible model for new enabling legislation for establishment of the Commission I would suggest similar language as the 9-11 Commission legislation, a 10-member bipartisan commission of prominent US citizens, with national recognition and significant depth of experience in such pertinent professions. 
[Title VI i.e. https://tinyurl.com/y6nooym4]

Because it is doubtful that a sitting Congress would propose such an amendment, it may be necessary to pursue a strategy authorized by the Constitution involving a convention where two-thirds (2/3) or 34 of the 50 states make an application for Congress to establish a constitutional convention in order to propose amendments. Amendments would then need to be ratified by either individual state conventions or by individual state legislatures with a three-quarters (3/4) vote. This method has never been utilized and it is noted that the convention method of amendment is surrounded by a lengthy list of questions [https://tinyurl.com/yxl7wbs5].

Whether it would be proposed by the Congress or by at least 34 states, such an amendment would require a nationwide movement similar to the Amendment 28 movement being conducted by the organization American Promise to restore a democracy in which we the people — not big money, not corporations, not unions, not special interests — govern ourselves [https://tinyurl.com/y27ygahj]. In a previous post I have provided a list of organizations and groups that would be capable of organizing and conducting such a movement [https://tinyurl.com/y5qb35ge].

If such a National Commission On Congressional Rules could be established with Constitutional authority it would be able to establish any number of new and revised rules to achieve more rational Congressional operations designed to reflect the best interest of the country as a  whole. In many previous posting I have advocated and provided details on a system of Shared Legislative Power (SLP), however, in this posting I am not strictly advocating SLP but merely suggesting a few specific rule revisions that I believe would force Congress to act in a truly bipartisan manner that would lead to much improved decision making.

Also as an inspiration and validation that Congress can function in a more civil, professional and responsible manner I offer the testimonials from Democratic and Republican representatives in Michigan that actually experienced participation in a Shared Power Arrangement. Their comments give us hope and a vision for a better future for our country. [See: https://tinyurl.com/ycq4xz22]

Starter List of basic ground rules for a more balanced and functional Congress: (Yes, there would be deadlock at times, but there would also be incentives to reach a real compromise. Compare it to the system we have now that simply cannot make a rational decision.)

1. "Regular Order" - Strict compliance with Regular Order all legislative measures must be assigned to a committee and go through the committee process before a Floor vote can be considered.  Debate and amendments may be considered with all amendments and final passage requiring Two-Thirds (66.7%) approval. 

2. Nonpartisan Staff - All Committees shall include combined, unbiased politically neutral staff similar to existing requirements of the House and Senate Ethics Committees, e.g. "a professional, nonpartisan staff...  perform all official duties in a nonpartisan manner...  shall [not] engage in any partisan political activity..."   

3. Proportional Membership - Committee membership makeup proportioned to overall chamber majority v. minority

Example: assume Senate split 53-47 so 53/100 = 0.53 so a 20 member committee divided 20 x .53 = 10.6 round to 11. Committee makeup would 11-9. If Senate majority was 60-40; Makeup would be: 12-8. If Senate majority was 51-49; Makeup would be: 10-10

4. Approval Votes -All subcommittee and committee votes require 75% approval. e.g. 20 member committee requires 15 votes to approve.

5. Co-Chairmanships - All Oversight committees, Special Committees, Approval Committees (Advise & Consent, Treaties, etc.) require Co-Chairmanship with equal powers and combined, unbiased, politically neutral staff. Committee membership remains proportioned, but Co-Chairmanship and neutral staff will prevent political grandstanding and political theater with regard to critically important oversight responsibilities

6. Conflicting Rules - Eliminate extraneous rules that would interfere with this process.. e.g. filibuster, holds, Hastert, etc.

7. Petition For Action - To avoid leadership simply refusing to act as a means to delay or avoid critical issues (e.g. refusing to act on SCOTUS approval, stimulus, etc.) a Petition for Action may be submitted by 10% of the total chamber membership and which must be brought to the Floor for a vote and requiring a simple majority for approval. This would require members to be on record with a vote and combined with other changes (e.g. #5 & #1 above) will provide a transparent process to force action on critical issues and put members on the record.

8. Elevate Importance of Bill Cosponsorship - Devise a system that recognizes the total numbers of members and the degree of bipartisanship for each legislative proposal that will be used to determine the priorities for legislative action. This will put more responsibility on individual members to seek support for their ideas and reward individual and cosponsoring members that can develop priority legislation for action.  

9. Eliminate or Revise The Electoral College Process - As an added consideration to the effort to amend Congressional rules, the National Commission should also seriously debate the Electoral College process and consider elimination or revisions similar to the National Popular Vote (NPV) initiative which makes the national popular vote relevant. 

Democracy On The Brink

Democracy On The Brink
 

Epilogue #1: COMPROMISE v. NO COMPROMISE​ (2/7/20 below)

Epilogue #2: A Constitutional Intervention Movement (9/29/20 below)

As I have written before [https://tinyurl.com/wsmq55o], it is my belief that Congress is at the core of the tribalism and discord within American politics. Congress sets the tone for our political discourse. Congress is the mechanism that is supposed to provide a “check and balance” on our political direction. Therefore, in an attempt to bring reason, common sense and civility back to the country we need to focus on Congress.

We are now at a critical point in the election year of 2020 where literally the future of democracy is at stake. The major issues of the day are important battles, but without a workable democracy we have lost the war.

The solution to Congressional dysfunction is actually pretty simple. The conundrum is how to implement it. The solution to achieving effective legislation and meaningful executive oversight is tedious research, reliance on sound facts, public/expert input, serious discussion, debate and finally compromise. Compromise is the solution.

[Note: I know the term "compromise" is a dirty word in many circles. At a time when the entire Republican delegation in Congress (less one) has refused to publicly recognize the outlandish, abhorrent and criminal behavior of the sitting President, it is difficult for me to discuss the concept of compromise. Yet I must. I don't believe the population at large is reflected in the current crop of contaminated Republican House and Senate members now in Congress. I believe this country was built on the concept of compromise and if it is to survive it must find its way back to tolerance and compromise. There is no other choice if we are to remain a United country.]

George Washington experienced this same frustration in 1785 when he said, "We are either a United people or we are not. If the former, let us, in all matters of general concern act as a nation... If we are not, let us no longer act a farce by pretending it."

The Constitution which we now hold in high acclaim is a compromised document. In its original form it included major compromises on the issues of slavery, executive power and state v. federal control. It was almost not approved. It was thought to flawed by some of its most ardent promoters, and it was ultimately ratified by a very narrow margin. In the end great leaders came together and proposed and accepted various compromises to form a document that would be acceptable to the majority.

The Founders were actually very liberal in their direction and guidance on how Congress should conduct its mandated responsibilities. They simply said,  “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.” (Article 1, Section 5). So the dysfunctional, tribalistic gridlock that we find ourselves in today is really self-imposed and is the product of years of political maneuvering, manipulation and tweaking of the rules of operation. It's not rocket science. Congress makes the rules and Congress can change the rules.

Therein lies the rub -- changing the rules. If the solution to good, effective government is compromise the rules can be changed to require real bipartisanship and force compromise. However, this would require the two major political parties to relinquish some power and control -- an action which they currently relentlessly resist in favor of party over country. The fact, which was overlooked by the Founders, is that it appears that Congress is not capable of determining its "rules of its proceedings" to the benefit of the country as a whole -- only to benefit the party in control at any particular point in time. The result has been the development of a twisted, gnarly mess of rules and procedures laced with loopholes and tricks that generally benefit the party in power. Revenge politics has also resulted in the evolution of defacto rules whereby if your party has manipulated the rules or procedures to its benefit; it is now common practice for my party to do the same.

While the Founders were apparently confounded as to a solution they were aware of the destructive nature of political parties and warned us 240 years ago. John Adams, the man who would become our second President, warned in 1780:

"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil. . ."

Yet along with the warning, they did give us the tools to address the "evil" by granting Congress the power create its own rules of operation. The problem is how do you force the majority Party at any given time to change its rules when they have a vested interest in keeping things the way they are so they can maintain their power and control.  Congress must integrate the concept of fair and good faith compromise into the "rules of its proceedings". 

Bipartisan compromise is not one or two members of the minority party supporting a measure developed and totally controlled by the majority party. Bipartisan compromise is a process that begins with a level playing field and equal representation of the parties.

It's important to recognize that whenever Congress attempts to seriously investigate itself which it has many times over the years, it appoints a committee comprised of an equal number of Republicans and Democrats and stipulates that any recommendations must be approved by a majority and in some cases a supermajority. It also usually assigns neutral, unbiased staff or outside experts or consultants to do investigations and research as necessary. In many cases the committee will also hold hearings and comment periods to receive information, ideas and recommendations. Such is the case with the latest effort of the House of Representatives in its formation and the activities of the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress. Several recommendations from that on-going committee, approved by a unanimous vote, have now been introduced in the form of legislation to be considered by the full House.

[See: https://tinyurl.com/sffqwzg]

Congressional members specifically choose this process to lend credibility, substance and impartiality to their conclusions and recommendations. One has to ask, if this is the way we get credible, substantive and impartial results, why don't we utilize this process to develop legislation and conduct executive oversight? This process could be required by Congressional rules.

Instead, Congressional members have chosen a process that provides absolute control to the party that has the most elected members, no matter how narrow the margin. The results are predictable and unacceptable -- sham executive oversight, gridlock and unsustainable, one-party solutions to complex problems that will be overturned with the next change of the legislative majority -- It's insane! A legislative process designed to be unworkable and produce flawed results that will be unacceptable to roughly half of the country.

Yes, one party may have more members than the other and have overall control of legislative priorities, the flow of legislation through the Chamber and various administrative matters; however, we cannot continue to sacrifice good governance and leave the country vulnerable to a lack of needed legislation and oversight for an egregiously flawed system that we know is going to produce unacceptable results. Results that will be unacceptable to a huge portion of the population and guarantee uncertainty for all business operations and the populace because of the political roller coaster of elections and the ever changing balance of power.

Amended Congressional rules, requiring committees to have equal representation from each party, unbiased staff support, and strict compliance with so-called “regular order” could be game-changing. It would require equal, fair, comprehensive expert testimony, media scrutiny and extensive public input and transparency and would force bipartisan legislation and oversight based on research, investigation, agreed to facts & data, and diverse public input and scrutiny. By the time legislation advanced to a floor vote there would be a broad bipartisan coalition of legislators, experts, interest groups and the public to force a positive outcome. Likewise, executive oversight would be fair, balanced and meaningful and not utilized for political theater and harassment of political foes.

Yes, it would be difficult and it is a substantial departure from existing party power politics. But, compare it to what we have now! There would be temporary deadlocks, but eventually compromises would be reached and acceptable solutions would be found. As a country we must ask, "What is our goal?" Do we want to govern for half of the country or are we really the "United States" (and people) of America. If it is the former, we should be considering concepts of secession, dissolution and reorganization. If it is the latter we need amend our Congressional rules.

The fact that Congress cannot effectively deal with the most pressing issues of our time -- infrastructure, health care, immigration, climate change, entitlements, income inequality, international trade, civil & human rights, etc. -- is at the core of the public's unrest with the political chaos and tribalism that exists. Additionally, objective, unbiased and critical executive oversight is not possible under existing rules. It’s time to force Congress to change the rules and truly put “Country Over Party.”

Our country is struggling now just as it was some 240 years ago when a small group of concerned patriots saw the need for a major change in the government structure. They took on the nearly impossible challenge of moving the country from the Articles of Confederation to a new Constitution of the United States.

It takes leadership to effectuate change and we are on the brink of electing the next leader. To force the changes that are necessary, a knowledgeable, inspired, patriotic statesman-like leader in the Oval Office could use the power of the bully pulpit to unite the country and the powers that are needed to force such a change.

Pray or seriously hope for leadership to emerge.

Epilogue #1: COMPROMISE v. NO COMPROMISE​

For those that argue that you cannot work with or compromise with Republicans and Trumpers who are on the wrong side of history; I understand and struggle with the concept myself. But I ask; what is the choice? As I mention in this posting, what is the alternative? Revolution, civil war, secession, dissolution, reorganization, governmental collapse via impasse or simply transformation to autocracy? I guess those are alternatives, but not if the goal is to save democracy in the "United" States and preserving the Constitution and the rule of law. Yes, I believe we have severely veered off course and I don't claim to understand how virtually half of Congressional members can support the disgusting, odious, egregious and criminal behavior of the current President.  We are talking about stark, contrasting views of the two political parties of the country and a nearly equal divide among the populace. 

It's important to remember that we have reached this point of nearly irreconcilable​ ​differences because we did not compromise. And I mean real compromise; real bipartisanship as discussed above. We allowed the cancer of tribalism to go untreated and allowed it to metastasize throughout the fabric of our governmental structures. 

Ironically, the level of vitriol and rancor between Republicans and Democrats ​is not new and ​currently, takes on a similar intensity ​as ​that ​which ​existed between Federalist (supporting the Constitution) and Antifederalist (opposing) during the period following the Constitutional Convention and prior to its ratification (Sep. 1787- Jun. 1788). ​Then as now the future of a bitterly divided country was at stake.​ Compromise ultimately saved the day.  Can it do it again? ​

For the last 30 years the country has dealt with an erratic, oscillating shift in political power characterized by changing Republican and Democratic control of the presidency, the House of Representatives and the Senate. Since the turn of the century the majority power of the House and Senate shifted frequently​ but the majority numbers were never more than 18% and were almost always less than 10%. In the House a Party advantage of 43 votes or less generally determined majority power control and in the Senate a 10 members or less resulted in a Party control advantage. The point is, in this nearly equally divided country a very small percentage advantage in the House or Senate establishes total control of that branch of Congress. Under existing House and Senate rules the Party with the most number of members (no matter how small the difference) has total control of all committees and can completely set the agenda and overrule any opposition of the minority Party.

As I have written so many times before, with the country so deeply divided and the margins of political power control so small, there will never be real legislative bipartisanship as long as one party controls all legislative committees. Equal membership on committees and strict compliance with regular order would force compromise and unbiased oversight​ [https://tinyurl.com/vnwpfoo​]​​.  

​
T​he survival of the Trump Party ​will be tested in November, but we must remember the gridlock and dysfunction that was present before Trump, and we must realize the country will still be divided after Trump and it will take many years for our political system to evolve with the ever changing demographics of the country. 

As a reminder of our divisions, the continuous nature of our differences and the fact that some things never change, remember ​the quote above from John Adams 240 years ago ​when ​when he referred to the Political parties as the "greatest political evil under our Constitution.”​ As ​I discussed in a previous post many of the Founders warned us about the issues of political party power and their potentially dangerous and destructive nature, but admitted that the spirit of our beliefs are inseparable from our nature​ as a people [See: https://tinyurl.com/tynk4t4].  

If it is our desire to continue our democratic republic and keep our Constitution viable we must learn to live with these intense differences within the populace and within our political parties. We have been neglectful in addressing this issue and have now let it evolve on its own to a critical juncture​. If we cannot see or understand ​that the current system is not working after being repeatedly reminded -- we are blind and there is no hope; we will simply self-destruct in a matter of time. Otherwise, we can open our eyes and make the changes that are needed -- not minor tweaks -- major Congressional rule changes that force legitimate compromise.

I have offered a solution which has had some limited tests with positive results. I seriously invite readers to read the testimonials from Democratic and Republican representatives that have actually experienced participation in a shared power arrangement. I think you will find it remarkable [See: https://tinyurl.com/ycq4xz22]. 

There is never a good time to implement the politically sensitive changes that are necessary, but we are at the crisis stage -- the bubble is about to burst. Changes must be made if we are to save our democracy. There are other​ alternative solutions​ and refinements, ​I'm sure. ​However, i​t is my belief that new Congressional rules must have at the core the principle of compromise and equal representation of the parties no matter who holds the narrow numbers lead.

Epilogue #2: A Constitutional Intervention Movement

 

Our democracy was in serious trouble when I originally wrote this posting on February 7, 2020. I warned then, "the bubble is about to burst. Changes must be made if we are to save our democracy."

In the last eight months over 200,000 members of the American public have died and that number may double in the not too distant future. We are spending trillions to deal with the coronavirus and we'll spend trillions more. Small businesses are failing at an unprecedented rate; wildfires, hurricanes and erratic weather are ravaging our country; a divided population in rage is protesting, rioting and even killing on the streets of our cities; trust in government, elections, science and medical information has been shattered. 

We are now faced with a President and millions of followers that claim a peaceful assumption of power in the aftermath of the upcoming election is only possible if the President wins. There is actually a legal and constitutionally plausible path to keeping a non-elected President in power (https://tinyurl.com/yycgqxcd). And finally, even in the face of catastrophic events and issues demanding extreme and urgent action, we have a Congress that is totally incapable of making a rational decision for the good of the country -- only politically expedient decisions are possible like blatantly hypocritical appointments to the Supreme Court.

Rational thinking is the ability to consider the relevant variables of a situation and to access, organize, and analyze relevant information (e.g., facts, opinions, judgments, and data) to arrive at a sound conclusion.

As a nation we have already transitioned beyond democracy. Our government is now operating in a quasi-autocratic mode where decisions are made by Executive Order while a deadlocked and dysfunctional Congress only observes. We must also be reminded that the upcoming election is not the solution. The country was divided and locked in a dysfunctional quagmire before the current President and will continue to be confronted with the same insane patterns of dysfunction even if one party dominates the Executive and Congressional branches. 

We have witnessed over and over again that ideological overreach in one-party decision making is soon rejected by the voters in the next election and reversed or blocked by a new party in power. The constant repeating of this insane pattern has degenerated our government to its current state of dysfunction. How many times will we continue on this path before we change? 

Without a serious, nationwide Intervention led by experienced, rational, objective, bipartisan individuals, organizations and universities our democracy will be lost. We are exceedingly close to the ultimate failure of the great American experiment. Congress has proven time and again it is not capable of addressing the issues or correcting itself. The Intervention Movement must be on the order of developing An Agenda For Constitutional or Institutional Reform. 

There are hundreds of organizations; thousands of staffers; and billions in financial resources already committed to related matters that could be united and focused on such an effort. It takes leadership, concern and commitment; but it is possible. I would suggest starting here: https://tinyurl.com/y5qb35ge.

It's time we must stop talking about Constitutional Crises and start talking about Constitutional Solutions.