I was
trying to prepare a blog post on some of the latest statements from the
President which I believe are contributing to further divide the country and accelerate
further the dysfunction of the government.
I was going
to comment on the President’s statement that, “We lived in a divided nation. And I
am going to try -- I will do everything within my power to fix that. . .”
And also his comment about, “I
just see many, many untruthful things. And I tell you what else I see. I
see tone. You know the word “tone.” The tone is such hatred. . .”
And
then, of course, I couldn’t pass over the latest comments about the press: “I want to see an honest press. . . it’s so important to the
public to get an honest press. . .” And, the follow-up in a tweet: “The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes,
@NBCNews,
@ABC,
@CBS,
@CNN)
is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People!” And, the Fox News
endorsement, “.
. .and I have to say “Fox & Friends” in the morning, they're very honorable
people.”
I
have tried in previous posts to identify and explain some of the critical
elements of our broken government and some ways to address or suggest possible
solutions to those issues.
I
have also tried, even considering the fact that I am biased, to identify the
fact that both Democrats and Republicans are contributing to the broken,
dysfunctional government and both play the silly “gridlock games.”
However,
the events of the last several weeks and the current level of discourse on
politics and the state of the American democracy has been revealing to me.
This is not
the proper environment for a rational discussion of issues related to broken
government. I was reminded of my own words in a previous April 30, 2016, blog
post –What Is Broken Government & What Do We Really
Want?
There
I pointed out that sometimes the fix is not immediate and you must be careful what you wish for and deal with the
consequences. I said:
“So, what's the goal? What's the end game to fixing a
broken, rigged government? It's to make the politicians listen and do what the
majority wants -- Right? Well, before we go too far we should have a little
discussion about -- "Being careful what you wish for."
“We have to do a little self examination here. You see, we
already have a system that is "rigged" -- where majoritydoesn'trule. So, what we're seeking is a
"majority rule" system. Okay, so what if the majority doesn't agree
with you personally? Are you ready to suck it up and live with the
"majority rule"?
“You see, that's the hard part. . . at any given point in
time. . . sometimes, the majority opinion won't necessarily agree with
yours. So what are you going to do? Now what's wrong with the system? You want
a system that always delivers the result you want? Sorry, that's not the way it
works.
“So, here's the caveat -- over time, the majority system
corrects itself. At least it corrects itself to the majority at that time.
Sometimes the majority gets fooled or needs to experience a certain policy
or ideology. Then, if the vision does not turn into reality, the majority corrects
itself by changing direction. You have to trust the majority system. And, if
you can't live with majority rule then you should probably seek another
alternative, somewhere else.”
My post on “what do we really want” and
comment above, written before the November election basically assumed that the
person who would win the Electoral College vote would also win the popular
vote. As we know now that was not the case and the loser actually received 2.8
million votes more than the winner. Although I disagree with the Electoral
College process, it was the legal and known process for last November’s
election and I accept that.
But, my point is still the same. “Sometimes the majority [or Electoral
College results] gets fooled or needs to experience a certain policy or
ideology. Then, if the vision does not turn into reality, the majority corrects
itself by changing direction.”
For me, that’s where we are right now. We are waiting to
see if this new President’s vision, and the vision of those who voted for him,
will turn into reality. If not, the ingrained structure of our democracy which
binds us all together will correct itself and we will change direction.
And so it goes. We are in a period of blurred vision,
waiting for clarity. We’ll see (pun intended).
In the meantime I’m reminded of my Grandmother’s old saying
many years ago when I was a young man – “Give them enough rope and they’ll hang
themselves.” That works for me. Spring is in the air and I’m thinking about
going fishing.
Note: The Plaid Zebra is an unconventional
lifestyle magazine that aims at broadening the horizons of potential lifestyle
choices and uplifting the autonomous with inspiration and example.
[Excerpt] An America divided.
Although I didn’t grow up in Virginia, I’ve been
visiting since I was a child and attended Virginia Tech for college. This state
is a prime example of the rural/urban divide witnessed across the country.
Locals understand the stark contrast between the more liberal and urban,
northern Virginia – known as NoVA – and the more conservative and rural,
southern Virginia – known as the “real” Virginia. As a user on
Reddit pointed
out: “I was taking classes over the summer in Blacksburg, and this guy asked me where I was
from. I replied Northern Virginia. He referred
to people there as Communist pricks…Well, that escalated pretty quickly.”. . .
On the way home, I sympathetically examined the
rolling hills of Rocky Mount,
Virginia and I tried to make
sense of it all. The relationship between God, country and guns no longer sits
well in my heart as it once did when I was a little girl. How could a community
that evoked the name of Jesus in prayer – a divinity I always believed promoted
peace over violence – do so minutes before bidding on guns? Machines built to
kill. How could a community similar to the one I hail from, embrace a man like
Trump, and all that he represents?. . .
Comment by J.P. McJefferson:
Nice
article Victoria.
Can't believe there's only one comment. You have really captured the same
feelings I'm having of late. I too have friends and family on both sides of the
divide. And you have correctly identified the elephant in the room -- guns. So
long as the direct popular vote doesn’t count (which it doesn’t under the
Electoral College system) and until Democrats understand guns and the gun
culture, they may never win another Presidential election. All you have to do
is look at the last election results, i.e. red v. blue by counties
and you will see the urban rural split amplified. It troubles
me that there can be so much hate and vitriol between the two sides. Is this
what it was like at the dawn of the Civil War where over 600,000 Americans died
killing each other. Democrats, even with the backing of 80-90% of the
electorate on background checks, have never been able to deliver a credible,
believable or incontestable message on guns – that is, a message that
Republicans and rural America
could buy. There’s always the argument that ANY regulation or control will lead
to another, and another, and another, etc. and NO incident, however horrific,
can justify regulation or control. The NRA, for decades, and now Donald Trump,
of recent, have tapped into the rural America gun culture and it will be
exceedingly difficult, going forward, for any Democrat to ever win their trust.
P.S. For
the record I have lots of guns myself: a 410 shotgun; a 22 pistol; a 22 rifle;
a 38 revolver; another older revolver; and an old Indian trade musket. FOLLOW-UP UPDATES Analysis | Gun ownership used to be bipartisan. Not anymore. wapo.st/2peJqlG?tid=ss…, The Washington Post, By Mark Joslyn and Don Haider-MarkelMay 9, 2017 America’s Complex Relationship With Guns, An in-depth look at the attitudes and experiences of U.S. adults, June 22, 2017, Pew Research Center. https://goo.gl/tH7aSJ
Here
I go again trying to defend the concept of true bipartisanship and ways
to achieve it. I scratch my near bald head, watch the political shenanigans in
amazement and am at a loss for words to describe the avalanche of governance
garbage that is filling the space of our daily lives. "How can this be
happening?" I ask. And then I answer, "It's so obvious. Why can't we
get this right and move on?
An
article, by David Frum,"How to Build an Autocracy", in
the March 2017 issue of The Atlantic is enlightening and caught my attention
when it talked about the power of Fox News to the typical Republican
member of Congress and its ability boost or crush a Member's popularity with
their constituency. That power has recently been increased big time with the recent
Presidential endorsements.
E.G.
1/24/17 Tweet: "Congratulations to @FoxNews for being number one in
inauguration ratings. They were many times higher than FAKE NEWS @CNN - public
is smart!" And about his recent CIA speech, Trump said, "That speech
was a home run. That speech, if you look at Fox, OK, I'll mention you -- we see
what Fox said. They said it was one of the great speeches." He told ABC's
David Muir, "Turn on Fox and see how it [CIA speech] was covered."
The
end point of the discussion was that "oversight of Trump by the Republican
congressional majority will very likely be cautious, conditional, and limited."
This is a screaming red flag on the breakdown of governance and the
Constitutional system of checks and balances that is supposed to protect us
from an over zealous Executive branch.
The
article rightly points out that, "As politics has become polarized,
Congress has increasingly become a check only on presidents of the opposite
party. Recent presidents enjoying a same-party majority in Congress—Barack
Obama in 2009 and 2010, George W. Bush from 2003 through 2006—usually got their
way."
Also
discussed in the article is the incredible power of social media. Frum, in a
hypothetical projection envisions, "social media circulate ever-wilder
rumors. Some people believe them; others don’t. It’s hard work to ascertain
what is true." Additionally, we have all been treated to the barrage of
tweets from our new President and his self-proclaimed ability to speak truthfully
and directly to the "people" and bypass the filter (i.e. fact
checker) of the "mainstream media" which his Administration
calls the "opposition party” which should "keep its mouth
shut."
We
must also not forget the enormous power that goes with the Presidency, i.e.
control of all agencies including the FBI and CIA and other intelligence
bodies. That power could be misused as it has been in the past to "harass
political dissenters and activists, to amass secret files on political leaders,
and to collect evidence using illegal methods."
So,
the Founders, in all their brilliance (and they were unbelievably brilliant)
did not foresee the power of Fox News, social media and the high tech
capabilities of intelligence gathering by those with nefarious or malicious
intent. These factors have and could have a profound disruptive influence on
the system of checks and balance they wove into the Constitution to keep the
Executive branch in check.
Now
back to the dead horse -- bipartisanship. By not engaging in true
bipartisanship in governing, Congress relinquishes a considerable portion of its
power over the Executive branch. True bipartisanship is not easy, and as I have
said in previous posts, it runs counter to the DNA of most politicians, but it
is the key to restoring Congress as the strongest branch of government as the
Founders intended. It is also the key to ending gridlock, making Congress
functional again, and elevating its approval ratings in the eyes of the public.
True bipartisanship begins
with a basic recognition that you cannot govern an equally, ideologically
divided nation with all of the power on one side. It is a recipe for disaster
which is exactly what we have now under the existing power distribution scheme.
It is why Congressional approval ratings generally range between 10%-20%. It is
why Congress, by demonstrating its gross incompetence, has ceded nearly all of
its power to the Executive branch. While Republicans currently have the power,
my position and argument applies to both parties, no matter who has the power
at any given time. Both parties share equally in their responsibility for
Congressional gridlock.
As
I have tried to explain in previous postings, true
bipartisanship beginning with shared power in the committee and
subcommittees system of the House and Senate could completely alter the
legislative process dynamics, reduce the incentive for gridlock games and
political posturing, maximize and focus staff resources and blunt the affect of
excessive lobbying and financial influence.
As
atypical as the concept of shared power in Congress is, it is not without
precedent. The House and Senate Ethics Committees operate and function with the
concept of shared power where there is equal party membership on the committees
and the staff is nonpartisan and prohibited from engaging in
any partisan political activity by Congressional rules.
Imagine legislative proposals for immigration
reform, infrastructure development, health care and a host of other critical
issues arriving on the House or Senate floor after being developed through a
shared power committee structure.
The process would force bipartisanship at the
beginning of the process. Imagine, at the subcommittee level where Members with
specific knowledge of the subject matter from both sides of aisle each present
their proposals for addressing the issue. They would most likely be markedly
different. They would have to argue and debate, have hearings with experts and
testimony equally from both sides, utilize unbiased staff resources to
investigate and develop suggestions and finally craft a compromise. The process
would be somewhat like the Conference Committee process where competing
differences between House and Senate bills are resolved; however, it would be
much more thorough, comprehensive and nonpartisan.
The compromise would have to achieve a
majority vote of the subcommittee and move on to the full committee where it
would again be debated, subjected to hearings, further scrutiny and finally a
majority vote of the full committee.
As the legislation reached the House or Senate
floor there would still be plenty of opportunity for dissent, as it is unlikely
that proposal would achieve unanimous consent. Amendments and debate on those
amendments would be expected and more conventional political maneuvering would
likely occur where the majority party would obviously have the upper hand.
However, legislation developed through this process would be much more credible
and would have true bipartisan roots and support from Members from both sides
with skin in the game.
Similarly, as with legislative development,
the idea of shared committee power with nonpartisan staff would vastly improve
the other major responsibility of Congress – Executive branch oversight. No
longer would oversight be limited to just presidents and agencies of the opposite
party; partisan
witch hunts and character assassinations would likely be eliminated and
effective review of agency programs, budgets and actions would be more
normalized.
As
indicated above, true bipartisanship would not be easy and is counter to the
excessively polarized and partisan political environment that exists
inside the Beltway. But, if Congress does not change its ways we are doomed
with gridlock, ever increasing Executive branch power and the frightening
future predicted in David Frum's article, "How to Build an
Autocracy."
If
Congress does not change its own ways (which is highly unlikely), the now
completely scattered public pressure from interest groups and public
demonstrations should be coordinated and focused on what I have called the Achilles'
heel, the linchpin of Congressional dysfunction – the broken committee and
subcommittee process. Friday, February 10, 2017
(October 30, 1735 – July 4, 1826) John Adams was an American patriot who served as the second President of the United States(1797–1801) and the first Vice President (1789–97). He was a lawyer, diplomat, statesman, political theorist, and, as a Founding Father, a leader of the movement for American independence from Great Britain. His son, John Quincy Adams served as the 6th President of the U.S.
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”
. . .
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
. . .
“Abuse of words has been the great instrument of sophistry and chicanery, of party, faction, and division of society.”
. . .
“Liberty cannot be preserved without general knowledge among the people.”
. . .
“Because power corrupts, society's demands for moral authority and character increase as the importance of the position increases.”
. . .
“While all other sciences have advanced, that of government is at a standstill - little better understood, little better practiced now than three or four thousand years ago.”
. . .
“Power always thinks... that it is doing God's service when it is violating all his laws.”
. . .
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
. . .
“I always consider the settlement of America with reverence and wonder, as the opening of a grand scene and design in providence, for the illumination of the ignorant and the emancipation of the slavish part of mankind all over the earth.”
. . .
“There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”
I’ve been
searching for the Achilles' heel, the
linchpin of Congressional dysfunction -- the one thing, that if you could fix
it – Congress would function better. There are so many individual things that
contribute to Congressional dysfunction that result in gridlock and the body’s
historically low approval ratings.
Some of the obvious
are: intensive partisanship; lobbying and moneyed influencing; gerrymandering;
excessive use of the silent filibuster in the Senate; the so-called Hastert
rule in the House; riders & unrelated amendments tacked onto bills; Senatorial “holds” that
allow any Senator to stall legislation; and many House and Senate arcane rules
and procedures that are used to gum-up the works of the legislative process.
One not so obvious
mechanism of gridlock that is currently embedded in the foundation of the
legislative process is the House and Senate committee system. This system,
which gives overriding power to the majority party, is rarely discussed or
challenged and is completely self imposed by operating procedures of the House
and Senate. There is no Constitutional or legal requirement for the process.
There are some 200 committees and subcommittees in
the House and Senate – 21 major committees in each house and approximately 150
Subcommittees between the two chambers.
If you do any research on how government works you
will quickly be informed that the committee, and even further the subcommittee,
level is where the legislative process begins. As I pointed out in a previous post, the committee and
subcommittee level is where specific legislative language is developed, staff
research is done, experts are consulted, hearings and public meetings are held,
witnesses and interest groups testify and votes are taken to move things
forward. This is where lobbyists and interest groups have their greatest
influence because they are dealing with fewer legislators that they must win
over to their point of view. Also, Congressional committees perform the
critically important function of oversight of Executive branch agencies and
actions.
Obviously, the
committees and subcommittees are where the power structure of Congress begins.
The leaders of these bodies have enormous power to control and manage
legislative development. One thing that you rarely hear about is the details of
how these bodies are structured and how they operate. It is here, at this very
basic level of the legislative and governing process where one, so inclined,
could begin to repair Congressional gridlock.
Party
leaders generally determine the total size of committees and the ratio of
majority to minority members on each of them. House committees vary from 10 to
61 members, with an average of about 40. Senate committees are smaller, varying
from 6 to 28; most have between 16 and 20. Members of both parties serve on
each committee, with the majority party having more seats.
For example, the
powerful House Energy & Commerce Committee is currently chaired by
Representative Fred Upton (R-MI). The Committee includes 31 Republican members
and 23 Democratic members. There are six separate subcommittees. A typical
subcommittee, the Environment & Economy Subcommittee is chaired by
RepresentativeJohn Shimkus(R-IL). The Subcommittee includes 12
Republican members and 8 Democratic members.
Thus, all environmental
issues (legislation and oversight) that are considered in the House of
Representatives begin their journey first in the Subcommittee and then the full
Committee and are completely controlled by the Chairmen of these bodies and all
matters are decided where the majority party has a significant voting
advantage.
Although House and
Senate rules provide some concessions to the minority party, the bottom line is
that they have no real control over the agenda, all actions are controlled by
the majority party; they are provided less budget and staff resources, witness
testimony is always lopsided in favor of the majority, and most importantly
they are out-voted and out-maneuvered on all differing positions.
In the search for the Achilles' heel of gridlock, this is where we must ask the
question: If the country is divided 50-50 along political ideologies why do we
give complete legislative and oversight control to the so-called “majority”
party?
In the most recent election, Republicans won majority
control of the membership in House and Senate and likewise won Executive branch
control through the Electoral College. But, to understand gridlock you have to
look at and recognize the ideological split of the country. The best measure of
that is the recent popular vote where 48.2% of the population voted for Clinton, 46.1% voted for
Trump and 5.7% voted for others. For discussion purposes, call it a 50-50 split
at best.
It’s not rocket science to understand that if you have a
50-50 ideological split of the population and you are addressing almost any
major issue like climate change, immigration reform, jobs, equality, gun
violence, health care, family planning, minimum wage, infrastructure, etc.; or,
if you are providing oversight of Executive branch agencies, you’re going to
have immediate and intense gridlock if only one party controls the complete
agenda of activities.
While Republicans control the House by 241-194 and the
Senate 52-48, wouldn’t it make sense, considering the political divide of the
country, if the committees and subcommittees had an equal number of Republican
and Democratic members and a shared power arrangement? This would immediately
force bipartisanship and would result in much higher quality legislation and
oversight at the start of the process. Legislation that made it to the House
and Senate floor under this process would likely pass with overwhelming margins
from both sides. Likewise, oversight activities would be much more meaningful
and likely result in constructive changes and improvements in agency programs, budgets and
actions, rather than witch
hunts and political theater.
Under a system of shared committee power, much of the
incentive for gridlock, political posturing and what I call “gridlock games”
(arcane rules and procedures that are used as political tricks by both majority
and minority parties) would be lost.
Another
major advantage of a shared power arrangement would be the allocation and
utilization of staff resources. In 2000, House committees had an
average of 68 staff and Senate committees an average of 46. Under the existing
system the majority party gets the largest number of staff resources and staff
are biased and aligned with their party leadership.
Staff
resources are critical and their main job is to assist with writing, researching,
analyzing, amending, and recommending measures to their committee leadership. Most
staff and resources are controlled by the majority party members of a
committee, although a portion must be shared with minority party members.
If
unbiased staff resources were focused on various issues the process would
likely move more quickly and much less time would be spent on opposition
research and counterproductive activities. Lobbyist and interest groups would not be able
to simply focus their efforts on party or a few key legislators, but would have
to make more reasoned and compromising proposals that would be acceptable to staff
and a majority of committee members.
Many political insiders
that have observed or participated in the modern day committee process may say
this idea of shared power is simply impractical, too contentious and flies In the face
of current political norms. But, before we dismiss the idea, it’s important to
take a historical look at the evolution of the committee process.
In the document, An Overview of the Development of U.S. Congressional
Committees, by Michael Welsh it is noted that, “. . .it is
useful to remember that Congress originally had no standing committees. Its
legislative business was conducted either by temporary select committees, or by
referrals to cabinet departments like Treasury, War and State, and was largely
directed by the budding political parties of the era. Congress, however, soon
discovered that it needed its own institutions -- permanent committees – to
effectively craft legislation, properly oversee the Executive Branch and assert
its standing as the first branch of government. . .
“. . . before 1846,
(when the majority and minority party members agreed to use lists of committee
members cleared by party caucuses). Majority party leaders often could not
control committees. Indeed it has been estimated that between 1819 and 1832 a
fifth of Senate committees were controlled by the minority party; and that
one-fourth were chaired by minority party members.”
Additionally, before
we dismiss the idea of shared committee power we need to take a careful look at
the two existing committees in Congress that already operate under a shared
power arrangement – the House and Senate Ethics Committees.
The Committee on Ethics is unique in the House of
Representatives. Consistent with the duty to carry out its advisory and
enforcement responsibilities in an impartial manner, the Committee is the only
standing committee of the House of Representatives with
its membership divided evenly by party.
For example, the House Ethics Committee rules provide that: “The staff is to be assembled and retained as a professional,
nonpartisan staff. . . The staff as a whole and each individual member of the
staff shall perform all official duties in a nonpartisan manner. . . No member
of the staff shall engage in any partisan political activity directly affecting
any congressional or presidential election. . .” The Senate Ethics Committee rules contain
similar provisions.
It is possible to
envision that rules and procedures for a shared power committee and
subcommittee arrangement could be devised using concepts contained in the House
and Senate Ethics Committees’ rules and those governing Conference Committee
procedures where differing issues are resolved.
In conclusion, Congress,
which is now controlled by the Republican Party, can continue to govern under a
philosophy that half of the population does not exists or it can choose another
path. It can continue to proceed under the illusion that it has a mandate to
ignore the hopes and desires of half of the population or it can choose another
path. It can continue to perpetuate Washington
gridlock and further divide the country or it can choose another path. It can
continue to diminish its power and respect as a major branch of government or it
can choose another path.
A simple change of course
could reap huge benefits to a country that is deeply divided and begging for
new direction.
Politics Is Power. . .with a capital “P” and that rhymes with “P” and that stands for POWER. . .
Cherry picking and altering a few lines from the 1962 American musical film classic, Music Man, starring Robert Preston as Professor Harold Hill:
Friend, either you're closing your eyes to a situation you do not wish to acknowledge or you are not aware of the caliber of disaster indicated . . . ya got trouble right here in the U.S.A. . . We've surely got trouble! Right here in the U.S.A! Remember the Maine, Plymouth Rock and the Golden Rule! Oh, we've got trouble. We're in terrible, terrible trouble. [See the real lyrics]
Okay, maybe the analogy between politics and pool in the Music Man is not perfect, but I’m trying to make a point here. Whether you want to believe it or not there is a serious political divide in this country that is threatening to rip it apart.
As a somewhat humorous aside, but truly related; I stumbled upon a 2015 song by the great Willie Nelson and the late, great Merle Haggard, that captures the feeling of about half of the country:
“Well, it’s all going to pot Whether we like it or not The best I can tell The world’s gone to hell And we’re sure gonna miss it a lot. . .” [access the video]
Seriously, although 52% of Republican voters think Donald Trump won the popular vote (see article) – he didn’t. . . and that’s a fact – he lost by nearly 3 million votes (2,864,978 as of 12/15/16). To make it clear, that means that out of all the citizens of the United States that cast their ballots in the latest Presidential election and did their duty as Americans, almost 3 million more voted for Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump to be the 45th President and almost 54% of those that voted, did not vote for Donald Trump.
We have to start looking at facts, not rhetoric; and try to understand what it means:
·A December 19, 2016, a Gallup poll shows that 57% of adult Americans approve of the job that President Barack Obama is doing
·The same day, a Rasmussen Reports poll indicates 56% of Americans think the country is on the “wrong track”
·On December 16, 2016, a Gallup poll indicates 78% of Americans disapprove of the job Congress is doing [access the first three polls here]
From the above facts, it seems fairly obvious that most Americans think the country is on the wrong track, they approve of the job President Obama has done, they are concerned and cautious about a Donald Trump presidency and they are really dissatisfied with the job that Congress has done.
So as Professor Harold Hill says, “either you're closing your eyes to a situation you do not wish to acknowledge or you are not aware of the caliber of disaster indicated” if you chose to ignore these facts. Yes, Donald Trump won the Electoral College vote (See previous post) and according to the rules of the game under which we are playing now, he is undisputedly the new President of the United States; BUT, under no circumstance can President-elect Trump or the Republican Party claim that they have a mandate to exercise their political will.
To claim such a mandate would be to blatantly and shamelessly ignore the facts and to put party, power and politics above good government and to intentionally exacerbate the already deeply divided general public.
According to the rules, the GOP has all the political power – House, Senate and Executive Office – but by all counts, a razor thin margin in nationwide political divide. There is now a clear choice as to how it uses that power – to heal the nation or further divide it.
It’s not enough to simply say: “Democrats get over it. You lost. Buck up and move on.” Well, I guess that’s the simplistic solution. But that solution is not going to heal a deeply divided nation.
It’s become a game played by both parties. “I win. Now you’re going to play by my rules and you’re going to pay for what you did to me.” The excuse for being mean is, “You did it to me, so I’m doing it to you. . . If you can do it, so can I.” [See previous post, Gridlock Games: "If you can do it, so can I. . ."] This is the childish game being played inside the Beltway. All the while ignoring the facts of how deeply divided the nation is – let’s call it 50-50.
The more we continue to play the foolish game and advocate “my way or the highway” solutions that ignore the beliefs of half of the country, the more the general public becomes frustrated, angry and distrustful of the process that can’t resolve the pressing problems of the day. That’s why the Congressional approval rating is around 20% -- on a good day.
Now the Electoral College has elected a new President and the expectation is that everything will change. But the old President had a 57% approval rating and the new one has something like a 46% approval rating. For sure we are going to see change, but was it really the President that was making people think we were on the wrong track?
What about Congress with their 20% approval rating? Unfortunately, they appear to be off and rerunning the same old playbook. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) has recently become a giddy supporter of Donald Trump after being an outspoken critic for months. Ryan, like a kid in a candy store with a pocket full of money, seems anxious to dust off all those Republican bills that were rejected when that mean old President Obama was in office. Knowing full well that those bills will not be acceptable to about half of the country, he’s ready to move quickly during the first 100 days to pass as many as possible.
He was recently quoted in the Washington Times saying, “We intend on delivering, and we’re going to make sure that this is the most productive Congress we’ve seen in a long, long time. I’m confident that, as people understand the way the legislative process works, they will see that we are going to be hitting the ground running.” [See article]
Among the promises are getting rid of air, water and climate change regulations; increasing oil and gas production on public lands; finally repealing the Affordable Care Act (Obama Care); cutting funding for Planned Parenthood; tax breaks for the wealthy; restarting the coal industry; cutting clean energy funding and programs; and many more highly controversial programs.
Here we go again. I’m not saying the Democrats wouldn’t do the same if the table was turned; but, I am reminded about the definition of insanity – you know “over and over again.” We actually have a choice and right now Republicans are in power and could actually change course. Recognizing the reality of a sharply divided electorate where the losing candidate actually received almost 3 million more votes than the winner, we could try something new – call it an experiment to reflect the changing times and the current political reality. If it produces better results maybe we could continue it.
So, is there one thing that could be done to really heal this divided nation and at the same time bring about government reform that would lead to better governance? Something that would acknowledge the differences between party principles, yet respect the participants on both sides of the aisle? An idea that could be implemented without a Constitutional amendment or even a new law. A solution completely within the Legislative branch of government that could be implemented immediately with just political will; and political will means power and the Republicans have it all.
This proposal is radical, but these are radical times. The nation is more divided than it has ever been and the traditional methods of operation in Congress have broken down to the point of being dysfunctional and unable to address the critical issues of our time. It is time for radical solutions that can truly make a difference. If radical measures are not taken, or at least tried, we will face further gridlock and deeper divisions and unrest of all Americans.
What better time to try a new approach than when the elected President loses the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes and there is no clear political mandate. To ignore this reality and carry on business as usual is grossly irresponsible and an insult to the American public.
Bipartisanship is a word that is used a lot in politics. The generalized definition is:
“a political situation, especially in the context of a two-party system in which opposing political parties find common ground through compromise.”
It’s a great concept and certainly what is needed in these troubling times.
Most often the term is touted in the context of bipartisan legislation or proposals to solve critical problems where the majority party manages to get the agreement of one or a few members of the minority party and the bill or idea is claimed to have bipartisan support – even though it is widely opposed by most of the minority party. This is phony or fake bipartisanship.
True bipartisanship is where legislation or proposals are developed within the context of a completely level playing field and advanced with near majority support from both parties, i.e. real compromise.
To get to the underpinnings of Congressional gridlock and disingenuous bipartisanship you must look deep down in into sausage factory of government where laws are made and issues are debated. It starts with the multitude of House and Senate Committees (21 in each house) and further down with the many Subcommittees (over 150).
The legislative subcommittees and committees are where the laws and solutions are developed and where executive agencies are monitored through oversight. Under current rules, this is where bipartisanship gets off to a false start. The subcommittees and committees are ruled by a majority party chairperson and the membership always assures a majority party control. Therefore all actions at this very basic level of solution development are under the strict control of the majority party.
For example, the powerful House Energy & Commerce Committee is currently chaired by Representative Fred Upton (R-MI). The Committee includes 31 Republican members and 23 Democratic members. There are six separate subcommittees. A typical subcommittee, the Environment & Economy Subcommittee is chaired by Representative John Shimkus (R-IL). The Subcommittee includes 12 Republican members and 8 Democratic members. Thus, all environmental issues that are considered in the House of Representatives begin their journey first in the Subcommittee and then the full Committee and are completely controlled by the Chairmen of these bodies and all matters are decided where the majority party has a significant voting advantage.
The committee and subcommittee level is where specific legislative language is developed, staff research is done, experts are consulted, hearings and public meetings are held, witnesses and interest groups testify and votes are taken to move things forward. This is where lobbyists and interest groups have their greatest influence because they are dealing with fewer legislators that they must win over to their point of view. In the above example, lobbyist and interest groups concerned about environmental matters can focus intense efforts on the Committee chairman and 12 Republican members of the environment Subcommittee that basically control environmental matters in the House.
Although House and Senate rules provide some concessions to the minority party, the bottom line is that they have no real control over the agenda, they are provided less budget and staff resources, witness testimony is lopsided in favor of the majority, and most importantly they are out-voted and out-maneuvered on all differing positions.
This is why legislative proposals and agency oversight are most often one-sided. This is why committee hearings are generally more of a sideshow rather than an objective information exchange and airing of different points of view. This is why lobbyists and special interests are able to exercise undue influence over the process. And finally, this is why ill-conceived legislative proposals that ignore large sections of the population arrive on the House and Senate floor. Likewise, it is the reason that legislative oversight of executive agencies turn into partisan witch hunts and character assassinationsof agency personnel rather than an effective review of agency programs, budgets and actions.
With a simple act of Republican Party will and power in the House and Senate, this situation could change if the rules of committee and subcommittee operations were amended to provide equal co-chairs, equal majority and minority membership, and equal budget and staff.
This one fundamental change in business as usual would completely alter the legislative process dynamics by filtering the issues to be addressed to the most important ones and forcing compromise at the very beginning of the legislative process. It would assure that both sides – majority and minority parties – had an equal and fair hand in developing proposals and solutions to address the critical issues of the day and the reality of a politically divided population. Proposal and solutions, developed in the true spirit of compromise, could include the best ideas of both sides and avoid the sharp differences and conflicts that further divide the nation.
The operating procedures and details for such a change would have to be adopted in rules of the House and Senate but could be somewhat on the order of a Conference Committee which is a standard Congressional process to resolve differences between House and Senate versions of a legislative bill. Additionally, there is a ready-made model for shared power committee operations in the House and Senate Ethics Committees. These are unique committees where membership is evenly divided between each political party and unlike other committees, the day-to-day work of the committees are conducted by staff that is nonpartisan by rule.
In conclusion it is noted that the idea of shared power runs counter to the instinctive DNA of most politicians. The basic goal of political dynamics is to acquire power and use it to achieve ideological objectives. As sad as it may be, those objectives rarely include better governance.
While the party in power could institute reforms to heal a deeply divided nation the odds are not good. As I have discussed before politicians and Washington insiders cannot be expected to change the system for the better because all parties benefit and take advantage of the destructive mechanisms depending on who’s in power at any given time. If reform proposals are ever implemented it will most likely require something on the order of a public revolution with intense public pressure as well as strategic and coordinated involvement of the many public interest and reform organizations that are focused on these issues.
[See list of Tools for Democracy in the side panel]
