SLP: The Only Hope For
"Country Over Party"
I
used to write about “Shared Legislative Power” (SLP) as an innovative concept
and an alternative idea to address the issues around gridlock within government
and Congress specifically. I will summarize the SLP concept and provide further
insight below.
There
was a time when Congress was civil enough and functional enough to work across
the aisle. Today, as a country, we have moved beyond that point. In today's
highly charged, tribal politics environment, I now believe that SLP, which
would force saner minds to work together to solve problems, is one of the few
viable options to save the very democratic underpinnings of our Democracy. It
is my belief that we are dangerously close to slipping into a near autocratic
state mostly because of the complete failure of Congress to function in its
critically important oversight and lawmaking duties.
From
my perspective political and Congressional decorum began to seriously
deteriorate with the contentious election of George W. Bush over Al Gore. It
accelerated rapidly following the election of Barak Obama with the immediate
Republican strategy hatched the night of the Obama inauguration when top
Republican lawmakers and strategists were conjuring up ways to submarine his presidency
at a private dinner in Washington.
From that point on, through the “Birther” debacle, the Presidential campaign of
2016 and the first year of the Trump Presidency American politics have reached
a new low.
It
is also important to note that this breakdown in political decorum corresponds
closely with the development of the Internet, cable news, email, social media
and the way Americans communicate and interact with each other and receive
information.
The Tillerson Challenge
I’m
not a fan of Rex Tillerson, the former Exxon CEO and U.S. Secretary of State.
But, no matter what you think of him, what your politics are, or whether you
think he was sincere in his remarks, Mr. Tillerson released some powerful words
and thoughts at this year’s (May 2018) commencement exercises at the Virginia
Military Institute. He said in part:
“As I reflect upon the state of our American
democracy, I observe a growing crisis in ethics and integrity. . .
"An essential tenant of a free
society, a free people, is access to the truth. A government structure and a
societal understanding that freedom to seek the truth is the very essence of
freedom itself. [Quoting from the Bible at John 8:32]. You shall know
the truth and the truth shall make you free.
“It is only by fierce defense of the
truth and a common set of facts, that we create the conditions for a
democratic, free society comprised of richly diverse people, that those free
people can explore and fin[d] solutions to the very challenges confronting a
complex society of free people. If our leaders seek to conceal the truth, or we
as people become accepting of alternative realities that are no long[er]
grounded in facts, then we as American citizens are on a pathway to
relinquishing our freedom.
“This is the life of non-democratic
societies, filled with people who are not free to seek the truth. We know them
well. Societies in Russia, China, Iran,
North Korea.
You can complete the list.
“A responsibility of every American
citizen to each other is to preserve and protect our freedom by recognizing
what truth is and is not, what a fact is and is not, and begin by holding
ourselves accountable to truthfulness, and demand our pursuit of America's future
be fact-based -- not based on wishful thinking, not hoped-for outcomes made in
shallow promises, but with a clear-eyed view of the facts as they are guided by
the truth that will set us free to seek solutions to our most daunting
challenges.
It is also that foundational commitment
to truth and facts that binds us to other democratic, like-minded nations, that
we Americans will always deal with them from the same set of truths and facts
and it is truth that says to our adversaries, 'we say what we mean and we mean
what we say.' When we as people, a free people, go wobbly on the truth, even on
what may see[m] the most trivial of matters, we go wobbly on America. .
."
Dangerous
Decision-making
Tillerson’s
remarks strike at the heart of the issues surrounding sound decision making
today – i.e. basing decisions on “truth and a common set of facts. . . truth
that will set us free to seek solutions to our most daunting challenges. . .
not based on wishful thinking, not hoped-for outcomes.”
Tillerson’s
words identify the problems and set the goal that most of us would aspire to,
but ask yourself if you can see our existing governmental and political systems
being capable of producing such results – real solutions to our most daunting
challenges and the major issues of our time.
We
have three branches of government, all involved in major decision making and
none of them really produce results based on truth and a common set of facts.
The judicial branch comes the closest, but the use of competing “expert”
witnesses that can be bought and sold can leave judges and juries confused and
unsure. Usually the truth and facts win out and of course, decisions can be
appealed and argued through multiple levels of our overall court and legal
system.
The
Executive Branch, led by a President, of course professes to make decisions
based on truth and facts, but they are one-sided. The President, elected by the
states, with input from the people, is generally thought to represent the will
of the country at a particular point in time. But, the decision making by the
President is one-sided based on Party agenda, specific ideas, philosophies,
beliefs, etc. Decisions or actions by the Executive Office should be thought of
as one side of a legal argument with the President representing the ideas put
forth by the states, people and Party that elected him/her. Obviously, there is
always another side.
Finally,
we must look at Congress, the House and the Senate, truly elected directly by
the people and with a significant responsibility to make laws and provide
oversight of the Executive branch. We must ask the same questions regarding
Congressional decisions – are they based on truth and a common set of facts?
Being objective and disregarding which Party is in control of either or both
Congressional chambers, I have a hard time believing that very many people
could actually claim that Congressional decisions are based on truth and a
common set of facts?
While
most would agree that Congressional decisions are not based on truth and a
common set of facts, we have to think about the Tillerson challenge and ask
ourselves why is this true? Shouldn’t we be ashamed? If Congress is making laws
and providing Executive branch oversight based on something less than truth and
a common set of facts how can it expect the general public to have any respect for
its decisions or authority.
The
fact is there is very little respect. Current Congressional rules and
procedures are actually designed to distort truth and facts to fit a particular
party agenda or philosophy of whoever is in control at the time. The Parties
leaderships, over time, have manipulated the rules and procedures of Congress
to give the Party in control, no matter how narrow the margin, complete control
over the Executive branch oversight and the development of “solutions to our
most daunting challenges” -- all based on a one-sided assessment of truth and
facts. Somewhat like a court proceeding with only one side represented by legal
counsel.
The
existing system provides no viable power to the minority to challenge the facts
and data of decisions other than blocking tactics such as leaking media counter
information to increase exposure or utilizing misguided legislative rules and
procedures to encourage delay and gridlock which only perpetuates revenge
politics when party power changes. The minority party is basically prohibited
from participating in the proposal development and presenting competing data,
facts and information. Even when such information is presented it can be
summarily dismissed.
To
the contrary, legislators and their partisan staff, spend much of their time implementing
strategies to oppose competing arguments – e.g. finding experts with opposing
points of view; discrediting counter positions; defaming other legislators;
leaking false or discrediting media reports.
We
have lost the art of critical thinking, debate and compromise in problem
solving. Congress has started making decisions based on lies and fake (sometime
called alternative) facts that go unchecked or challenged.
There
are those that argue that the other side is so wrong and so off base that there
can be no compromise or working together to solve problems. But if we truly
adopt that position we should divide up the country and move to our respective
corners and operate under our own philosophies and beliefs – not a very
realistic alternative. There will always be a significant “other side.” As
Americans we must find a way to work together, live together, and make
decisions together.
Why
should we continue down the path of gridlock in addressing and solving the
major problems of our time or continuing to propose one-sided solution to
complex problems that will be overturned in the next change of political power?
Not to mention the fact that our inability to make consistent, long term
decisions based on truth and common facts has seriously weakened our
international reputation, standing and credibility.
As
the U.S.
dawdles in its self-made chaos of leadership and failure in decision making,
our international competitors and allies are hastening their advancement in
economic development, technology, and infrastructure in the vacuum we leave
behind.
Making
Congress Work With SLP
How do we ever break the cycle of revenge
politics and get back to solving problems with truth and a common set of facts?
It’s unlikely that Congress is going to address this problem on its own. Somehow
it has to be forced to consider alternatives by the people or some external
force. This is the Great Dilemma -- the solution
– SLP -- is at hand; the problem is how do we get there?
In
previous posts on SLP I have suggested that the House and Senate committee
system which gives overriding power to the majority party is the Achilles'
heel, the linchpin of Congressional dysfunction and is completely self imposed
by operating procedures of the House and Senate.
The
concept of SLP is simple, but it’s political and procedural impacts in Congress
would be enormous. SLP simply would call for Congressional actions to follow
so-called “regular order” initiated through the House and Senate Subcommittee
and Committee system and ending up with a Floor vote of the entire membership.
The
major difference from existing procedures is that the House and Senate committee
system would be altered to include equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats on each committee with Co-chairs in charge. 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.
Two existing committees
in Congress already operate under a shared power arrangement; so the concept is
not unique or without procedural precedent. The House and Senate Ethics
Committees are charged with carrying
out their responsibilities in an impartial manner. Additionally, on one rare
occasion the U.S. Senate operated under a shared power arrangement for several
months and the Michigan
state House of Representatives operated under SLP for an entire term. Both
resulted in amazingly successful and surprising results.
The rules for the ethics
committees require 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. . .”
This
one change would completely alter the outcomes of legislative development and
oversight responsibilities and would begin to meet the Tillerson Challenge of
basing decisions on “truth and a common set of facts. . .
When
a bill, action or decision was approved through the Subcommittee/Committee
process it would be considered as usual on the Floor of the Chamber. In the
House, I would recommend that the Hastert rule be eliminated. That Republican
“rule” requires that a majority of the Majority Party approve an action before
it may be considered by the full House. In both Chambers, I would recommend
that no riders or unrelated amendments be permitted for consideration. Members
could offer and debate individual related amendments; however they would likely
need some overwhelming information or evidence to support their position to
obtain approval over the committee support constituency.
Additionally,
there would have to be agreement that all legislation and oversight functions
would strictly adhere to the subcommittee - committee process. Too often, under
recent leaderships, even the existing committee process has been bypassed and
replaced with a leadership proposal or some “special” legislative group
proposal. Recent examples of the altered process include the GOP’s
consideration of a health care bill and its consideration of its final tax cut
proposal.
Assuming
adherence to the committee process, I think normal House and Senate rules could
apply. I would envision that the House and Senate would still be controlled by
their Majority parties based on the numbers of elected members. There would
likely need to be some alterations over time following experience with the new
process.
The
major difference would be that proposals reaching the House or Senate Floor
would have survived a grueling process of research, investigation, agreed to
facts and data, unbiased staff analysis, equal and fair expert testimony from
all sides of the issue, media scrutiny and extensive public input and exposure.
Additionally there would be a bipartisan core constituency of subcommittee and
committee Members that would have previously debated the issues and agreed to
acceptable compromises. This constituency would most likely have a vested
interest in defending the measure against hostile amendments and seeing the
action approved by the full chamber.
Sure there will be stalemates along the way, but
compare that to what we have now. One-sided solutions (and even that is rare)
to complex problems based on wishful thinking, shallow promises, alternative
realities and fake facts. Under SLP, eventually a few good members who put
country before party will step up and break the stalemate with compromised solutions
that the majority on both sides can support and that will likely stand the test
of time.
For further details and insights on SLP see my
previous postings which include:
###
#BetterGovmt
#PartyOverCountry
#ReformCongress
#Congress
#GOP
#DEMS
