|
Congress has
been called
the “broken
branch” of
our
government.
But is it
still broken
now that
Democrats
hold the
majority on
Capitol
Hill?
Are
Democrats in
the House
and Senate
behaving as
a
responsible,
governing
party
effectively
legislating
policy in
the national
interest?
Or are they
instead
being merely
responsive
to their
liberal
base, intent
upon playing
the politics
of
opposition
to President
Bush,
thereby
inviting
gridlock?
Clearly,
majority
Democrats
have shown
discipline
in keeping
the
legislative
trains
running as
witness the
legislative
productivity
numbers they
publicize.
Upon
regaining
the majority
in the 2006
election
Democrats
promised “an
end to the
two-day work
week,”
substituting
a Monday
through
Friday
schedule for
the
supposedly
lackadaisical
Tuesday
through
Thursday
Republican
schedule.
By the end
of this
October,
Democratic
leaders
could brag
about their
approximately
150 days in
session and
1200 hours
hard at
work. Most
noteworthy
perhaps, the
110th
Congress
eclipsed the
voting pace
of any
previous
Congress
with a
record 1,000
roll call
votes by
late
October,
something,
The
Washington
Post
intoned, had
“never
before
achieved in
a single
year in the
history of
recorded
House
votes.”
Indeed, when
measured by
roll call
votes,
Congressional
Democrats
have
succeeded in
outpacing
the
productive
first year
of the
Gingrich-led
“House
Republican
Revolution”
in 1995 and
the famously
energetic
“Watergate
Baby” first
year
Democratic
majority in
1975.
On the face
of it,
that’s quite
an
accomplishment.
Unfortunately,
while
statistics
such as
these are
useful
measures of
congressional
workload,
they fail to
fully
capture
legislative
productivity,
including
the impact
of
legislation
on people’s
lives.
For
instance, by
August 1,
1996, the
House had
cast only
397 votes
(compared to
790 this
year), but
it had also
approved a
landmark
bill to
reform the
nation’s
welfare
system,
along with
measures to
improve
health care
(PL 104-191)
and
strengthen
retirement
security (PL
104-121).
Similarly,
during the
first year
of “united
Republican
government”
under
President
Bush in
2001, the
House had
cast only
318 votes,
yet it had
also
approved the
largest tax
cut in a
generation
and the No
Child Left
Behind Act.
What do
Congressional
Democrats
have to show
for their
days and
hours at
work and all
their roll
call votes
this
session?
Early in the
110th
Congress,
Speaker
Pelosi
touted the
legislative
accomplishments
of her first
100 hours.
These
accomplishments
included
passage of
legislation
to raise the
minimum
wage, reform
lobbying and
ethics laws,
improve
veterans
benefits
and college
loans, and
implement
the 9/11
Commission
recommendations.
They were
also part of
the
Democrats’
Six for ’06
campaign
agenda. But
according to
one expert
quoted in
Congressional
Quarterly,
they also
amount to
“very small
potatoes.”
Meanwhile,
on the big
issues like
Iraq,
immigration
and health
care,
Democrats
have little
to show for
their
efforts.
Instead, the
naming of
courthouses
and post
offices
accounts for
almost half
of the bills
signed into
law this
year. In
addition,
Congressional
Democrats
are further
behind in
completing
the budget
process than
at any time
since 1987.
Poll numbers
are another
way of
gauging
legislative
success.
Unfortunately,
Congress’
poll numbers
suggest
Democrats’
bragging
rights may
be limited.
Congressional
Quarterly
reports
Congress
currently
suffers from
“rotten
reviews.”
In August,
Congress’
job approval
rating tied
the historic
low of 18
percent in
1992 – when
Democrats
last ran
Congress.
CQ recently
concluded
that
“plummeting
poll numbers
put Congress
in a bind,
threatening
to continue
the very
paralysis
and
partisanship
that got
them there
in the first
place.”
Paralysis
and
Partisanship?
Surely
Democrats do
not deserve
all the
blame for
paralysis
and
partisanship,
anymore than
Republicans
deserved all
the blame
they
received for
the same
prior to the
2006 midterm
elections.
After all,
it takes two
to tango.
It takes two
parties, two
chambers and
two branches
to
legislate.
Democrats
deserve
neither all
the blame,
nor all the
credit, for
paralysis
and
partisanship.
Credit?
Certainly.
Low poll
numbers do
not
represent
monolithic
disgust with
the meager
legislative
productivity
of
Congressional
Democrats.
Some of the
“rotten
reviews”
reflect
voters who
are not at
all
interested
in advancing
Democratic
legislative
ambitions.
Indeed, the
low poll
numbers may
be one
measure of a
lack of
consensus in
America on
some of the
difficult
issues
confronting
Congress and
the
President.
When
confronted
with a lack
of consensus
should
Congress
legislate?
If the
active
production
of
legislation
is the sole
measure of a
good
Congress,
then the
quantifiable
measures of
productivity
listed above
– hours,
days, votes
– are just
the ticket.
However,
such a
perspective
presumes, as
Democrats
often do,
that good
government
is activist
government.
Congress
scholar
Charles O.
Jones argues
that
governing
may include
halting
legislative
productivity.
What if
gridlock is
governing?
Jones notes
“the
prevention
of
legislation
may also
represent
effective
governance.”
At times the
status quo
may be an
improvement
over
legislative
change.
(Who has not
agreed with
this
observation
at one time
or
another?)
Republicans
believe good
government
means
limited
government.
The idea
that
Congress is
meant to be
a lean, mean
legislative
machine
constantly
cranking out
legislation
ignores the
fact that
Congress is
also meant
to be
representative
and
deliberative.
The Founders
purposely
did not
design
Congress to
act with
energy and
dispatch;
rather, they
meant
Congress to
be broadly
representative
and
deliberative.
Congress
should
represent
the
diversity of
the nation,
including
when
consensus is
lacking. At
all times,
Congress
should
deliberate
carefully
and
forcefully.
As I. M.
Destler
notes, the
genius of
Congress is
democracy,
diversity
and debate.
Sans
consensus,
should
Congress
act? Or
should
Congress as
a
deliberative
institution
exercise its
responsibility
to promote
public
deliberation
to educate
citizens
about public
policy?
Contentious
debate and
polarizing
partisanship
help sharpen
the issues,
providing
voters with
a choice,
not just an
echo.
Partisan
polarization
is not new,
and
bipartisan
responsibility
for partisan
rancor is
hardly
surprising.
Partisanship
is both good
and bad.
Partisanship
sometimes
diverts
Congress
from more
serious
issues and
hinders the
day-to-day
legislative
work
preventing
compromise.
But
friction
creates
light as
well as
heat. In
the words of
Frederick
Douglass:
“If there is
no struggle
there is no
progress.
Those who
profess to
favor
freedom and
yet
deprecate
agitation,
are men who
want crops
without
plowing up
the ground,
they want
rain without
thunder and
lightning.”
Our
Constitution
invites “the
spirit of
party” and
constructive
partisanship,
including
often
cacophonous,
cantankerous
partisanship.
The
principled
differences
between our
two great
parties –
whether over
the Iraq War
or SCHIP –
matter, and
should be
given voice.
Scholar
Jeremy
Waldron
underscores
a major
purpose of
lawmaking in
a democracy,
namely, that
of
displaying
disagreement:
“Legislation
is the
product of a
complex
deliberative
process that
takes
disagreement
seriously
and that
claims its
authority
without
attempting
to conceal
the
contention
and division
that
surrounds
its
enactment.”
Paralysis
and
partisanship
may be
productive.
Perhaps we
need to
lower public
expectations
of Congress
and
government.
Members need
to spend
time on the
Hill and at
home with
constituents.
Limited
government
is good
government,
especially
in response
to public
sentiment.
RF
William F.
Connelly,
Jr. is the
John K.
Boardman
Politics
Professor at
Washington
and Lee
University
in
Lexington,
Virginia.
|
