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.
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.
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].
The 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.
The 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, it 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.
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, it 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.
