A lot of people are pointing nowadays to declared abuses of the various rules and privileges that enable a small group of Congresspersons, or frequently just a single member fo the Senate, to block action on a bill or a simple confirmation. Continuing to burnish their reputation as the Party of No, Republicans these days have sought to prevent practically anything from moving through Congress.
The problem has arisen with respect to confirming Administration nominees to key government posts and to ambassadorial assignments. In addition, as one comment on this blog pointed out yesterday, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) has singlehandedly stalled legislation that would make important fixes in veterans' health care. Most recently, a handful of Republican Senators, including Sens. Sessions and Graham, tried to block a noncontroversial appointment to the federal bench. No wonder these antediluvian representatives of the people look constipated all the time!
This tyranny of one is but one manifestation of a Congress that is badly dysfunctional, frequently undemocratic, and often paralyzed in its attempts to accomplish the people's business. It's not surprising that serious political analysts have begun to call for far-reaching reform of Congress itself.
It's not only Republicans, of course. A few Democrats are playing the same game to try to get their way within their party, but by being selfish, they're doing little more than handing victory to the Republican side. Nevertheless, it's mainly Republicans at this time, since bringing the legislative process to a complete halt seems to be a GOP strategy, and because the Democrats are in power now. Back when the Republicans were in control, of course, it was the Democrats who invoked the same privileges to try to prevent action by the Republican majority.
And that, of course, is the problem. Calls for reform of Congress, streamlining procedures, making things more democratic -- these have been heard for decades. See, for example, The Broken Branch, by Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein, written several years ago. But reform never occurs because neither party will countenance reform when it's in power, and proposals for changes come only from the minority party.
It's a common negotiating problem. I worked for a few years on "Mutual and Balanced Force Reduction" negotiations between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, aimed at reducing the levels of conventional forces in Europe and which would have brought security and cost benefits to both sides. Depending on shifts in each side's relative strength, or differing perceptions of the political climate, we'd consistently get one side proposing something the other was adamantly opposed to. Perhaps a year later, Side B would decide to accept Side A's proposal but by then the relative advantages would have changed and Side A would refuse. These talks ran on for close to 17 years before an agreement was reached, under a different name (CFE ), by which time the Warsaw Pact was rapidly falling apart and the agreement much less essential.
Agreements for change are reached when opposing sides both consider it in their interest to do so; it's a matter of political will and relative advantage. It's not clear what sort of electoral distribution of seats, or cataclysmic political event, might bring about the necessary epiphany to both parties. I do know I'd prefer not to wait for the cataclysmic event.
Comments