The American Way

According to yesterday's Wall Street Journal (January 4, 2016), in an article written by Siobhan Hughes,

“[T]he House is expected to vote on a measure to defund Planned Parenthood and repeal part of the Affordable Care Act. The measure, which already passed the Senate as part of a procedure known as reconciliation, is expected to be vetoed by President Barack Obama.”

Predictable, but welcome. Not that I either oppose or favor Planned Parenthood or the Affordable Care Act (I have strong feelings on both subjects but they're not pertinent here – indeed, they're impertinent) but the procedure itself (an over-ride debate and vote following a presidential veto) is one that has been functioning for a long time but is ow all but dead. President Obama is the first President since Lyndon Johnson not to have a veto over-ridden.

Congress doesn't work, and we're all paying the penalty for that. We live under a system that favors politics over policy. There's no room for compromise. Congress has been paralyzed, and when different parties control the House an the Senate it is unlikely that any controversial legislation will be passed. Even when, as is true now, one party has a majority in both houses, the need for a “filibuster-proof” majority in the Senate (sixty votes – virtually unattainable) to end any threat of an endless harangue, makes it unlikely to happen. Virtually all the issues boil down to a clash of ideologies between the parties, and sometimes within them. Believing themselves to be warriors for “right” and “truth,” those with strong opinions are unwilling to compromise with “evil.” And they are also unwilling to allow what they view as wrongheaded bills to be passed. They'll use the virtue they see in their obstinacy “courage” in the next election campaign as what they expect to be a selling point.

Sometimes, however, what is being debated has, in their minds, some positive features. They're happy to compromise on those proposals, as long as the opposition accedes to their most cherished views. That, unfortunately, is the goal of the other party as well. So the result is often – though not invariably – a stalemate.

As noted above, another tool of a minority in the Senate is the filibuster. Noble in purpose but subject to abuse, this tool has changed over time. As Common Cause puts it,

“American government is based on the principle of majority rule. But in the U.S. Senate, a minority has turned that principle upside down. The filibuster rule, designed to protect the minority's right to be heard, has been transformed into a weapon that allows just 41 of 100 senators to squelch debate and block action on any bill, no matter its importance or public support.”

Originally a filibusterer had to speak continuously, and the Senate could not take up any other business during such an action. It took a great deal of effort and dedication for a Senator to undertake such a tactic. It was serious business. But now, the Senate

“made it significantly easier to filibuster by adopting rules that allow other business to be conducted while a filibuster is, technically, underway. Since 1975, senators have not needed to stand up on the floor and make their case to their colleagues and their constituents in order to halt legislation. Instead, these “virtual filibusters” can be conducted in absentia.” (nolabels.org)

It's easier now. No effort is needed. It's a great political maneuver at virtually no cost

Apart from convictions, there are other reasons for this self-imposed congressional impotence, but I'll focus on just one. That is the desire to protect the President. If a bill never reaches the President, he doesn't have to veto it. And for legislation that may have broad constituent support, it is beneficial to not be forced to go against the people who elected you.

That, however, in addition to thwarting both congressional and popular wishes, eliminates some of the benefits which might be gained by an end to the protection against the need for a veto. A minority that knows it can defeat any attempt to pass legislation not in keeping with its views, or those of its leader, has little inducement to negotiate and look for a middle ground. If they can prevent their opponents from having their way, why compromise? In addition, this may harden the position of the majority, making them appear to be intransigent. By doing so, however, they might present voters with a clear issue for the next election – but this issue can be muddied by presidential rhetoric.

Since the President gets far more press coverage than any member of Congress, his message will be spread to all voters. That message will probably include the accusation that Congress is unable to accomplish anything, which is just what a minority would like the American People to hear and believe. It's the minority's hope that promises to “make Congress work” will be their path to becoming the majority.

And in addition to accusations of congressional incompetence and inaction, the President will sign Executive Orders to authorize the actions he wants – irrespective of the preferences of Congress and the voters. Presidents do this anyway, whether or not such action is authorized by the Constitution, but in this case he can shift the blame to Congress.

It all boils down to congressional weakness and the presidential acquisition of power. And a change in the filibuster rules which make it easy to avoid responsibility. Like a Senate hold on an appointee or on other legislation (which effectively confers veto power on a senator), the filibuster puts too much power in the hands of individuals and minorities. Such senatorial rules as these – not specified in the Constitution – make us all pay for political actions of the few.

Congress doesn't work. But the problems are not insoluble unless we allow them to be so. Congress can become stronger and more effective if it wants to be. They made their own rules and they can change them – if we force them to.