What Congress needs is an Uprising of the Serious

[homersapien 11,440]

By Steven Pearlstein

December 29, 2022

 

Steven Pearlstein is the Robinson professor of public affairs at George Mason University. He is a former business and economics columnist for The Post and was awarded the 2008 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary.

The great mystery about our dysfunctional Congress is why so many of its members — good people from both parties who are serious about resolving the nation’s pressing problems — surrender their power to leaders and colleagues obsessed only with winning the next round of a partisan blood feud.

Surely they know that nothing will change if they continue to spend their days tweeting out partisan talking points, attending committee hearings that are mere political Kabuki, sitting through caucus meetings where party discipline is the only item on the agenda and dialing for dollars to win the next election so they can come back and do it all again.

And surely they understand that in a country and Congress so evenly divided, no party can long govern without a modicum of bipartisan cooperation.

As it happens, the convening of the new Congress next week presents a chance to change.

A small but determined band of far-right zealots is threatening to deny California Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the Republican leader, the speakership of the House unless he gives them what amounts to a veto on all legislation. The camp has driven the past two Republican speakers from office for daring to consider bargaining with Democrats. They fear the always-malleable McCarthy will be tempted to do the same.

The instinct of Democrats has been to gloat as members of the other party form a circular firing squad. But if, as they often profess, moderate Democrats are really interested in cooperating with serious Republicans, they should give McCarthy the votes he needs to become speaker. In exchange, Republican lawmakers eager to escape the thrall of the extremists would commit to using their procedural votes to insure that when legislation comes to the House floor, members can offer amendments — a rarity these days, no matter which party is in power. Such “open rules” do not guarantee bipartisanship, but they make it possible.

Such a deal must be an uprising of rank-and-file members. In today’s hyperpartisan environment, participation by party leaders would hopelessly divide their caucuses and thus damage their own power.

But what if McCarthy is so cowed by the zealots that he refuses a speakership won with Democratic votes? All the better. In that case, members of the Republican problem-solvers could join with Democrats to elect a speaker who, unlike McCarthy, commands respect on both sides of the aisle. Contrary to lore, speakers don’t have to be party leaders — they don’t even have to be members of the House. And under the rules of the House, they don’t really have much power. All the power we associate with modern speakers comes from leading the majority party, whose votes allow them to enact the rules and appoint members of committees, including the Rules Committee, which effectively decides which bills come before the House and which amendments (if any) can be offered. Losing the speakership would not mean that McCarthy and his enthusiasts lose power altogether.

What a bipartisan speaker could bring to the House is some much-needed comity and procedural fairness in place of the partisan rancor that has driven out civil discourse. Members of the minority party could exercise at least a small role in the legislative process.

I realize the idea of a bipartisan Uprising of the Serious sounds at once radical and naive.

The reason it sounds radical is because the House has been partisan and gridlocked for so long that few can imagine things any other way. In fact, before the 1990s, legislative outcomes were routinely determined by bipartisan majorities with the acquiescence of party leaders selected not for their fundraising skills or their ability to impose party unity, but for their skills as consensus builders and dealmakers.

As for naive, I can’t imagine anything more naive than believing McCarthy can win the speakership with only Republican votes without empowering the zealots and insuring another two years of partisan grandstanding and gridlock.

Only something “naive” and “radical” can free Congress from the political straitjacket it has created for itself. The solution won’t come from party leaders who have amassed enormous power by stoking partisanship and entrenching party lines. It will not come from base voters trapped inside their media bubbles or the politicians who pander to them. It can only come when reasonable House members of both parties muster the courage, imagination and faith in each other to use the power they have always had to get important things done.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/12/29/congress-needs-bipartisan-speaker/

 

 

 

[autigeremt 6,685]

Only something “naive” and “radical” can free Congress from the political straitjacket it has created for itself. 
 

sanity 

[DKW 86 7,440]

On 12/29/2022 at 8:33 PM, homersapien said:

By Steven Pearlstein

December 29, 2022

 

Steven Pearlstein is the Robinson professor of public affairs at George Mason University. He is a former business and economics columnist for The Post and was awarded the 2008 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary.

The great mystery about our dysfunctional Congress is why so many of its members — good people from both parties who are serious about resolving the nation’s pressing problems — surrender their power to leaders and colleagues obsessed only with winning the next round of a partisan blood feud.

Surely they know that nothing will change if they continue to spend their days tweeting out partisan talking points, attending committee hearings that are mere political Kabuki, sitting through caucus meetings where party discipline is the only item on the agenda and dialing for dollars to win the next election so they can come back and do it all again.

And surely they understand that in a country and Congress so evenly divided, no party can long govern without a modicum of bipartisan cooperation.

As it happens, the convening of the new Congress next week presents a chance to change.

A small but determined band of far-right zealots is threatening to deny California Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the Republican leader, the speakership of the House unless he gives them what amounts to a veto on all legislation. The camp has driven the past two Republican speakers from office for daring to consider bargaining with Democrats. They fear the always-malleable McCarthy will be tempted to do the same.

The instinct of Democrats has been to gloat as members of the other party form a circular firing squad. But if, as they often profess, moderate Democrats are really interested in cooperating with serious Republicans, they should give McCarthy the votes he needs to become speaker. In exchange, Republican lawmakers eager to escape the thrall of the extremists would commit to using their procedural votes to insure that when legislation comes to the House floor, members can offer amendments — a rarity these days, no matter which party is in power. Such “open rules” do not guarantee bipartisanship, but they make it possible.

Such a deal must be an uprising of rank-and-file members. In today’s hyperpartisan environment, participation by party leaders would hopelessly divide their caucuses and thus damage their own power.

But what if McCarthy is so cowed by the zealots that he refuses a speakership won with Democratic votes? All the better. In that case, members of the Republican problem-solvers could join with Democrats to elect a speaker who, unlike McCarthy, commands respect on both sides of the aisle. Contrary to lore, speakers don’t have to be party leaders — they don’t even have to be members of the House. And under the rules of the House, they don’t really have much power. All the power we associate with modern speakers comes from leading the majority party, whose votes allow them to enact the rules and appoint members of committees, including the Rules Committee, which effectively decides which bills come before the House and which amendments (if any) can be offered. Losing the speakership would not mean that McCarthy and his enthusiasts lose power altogether.

What a bipartisan speaker could bring to the House is some much-needed comity and procedural fairness in place of the partisan rancor that has driven out civil discourse. Members of the minority party could exercise at least a small role in the legislative process.

I realize the idea of a bipartisan Uprising of the Serious sounds at once radical and naive.

The reason it sounds radical is because the House has been partisan and gridlocked for so long that few can imagine things any other way. In fact, before the 1990s, legislative outcomes were routinely determined by bipartisan majorities with the acquiescence of party leaders selected not for their fundraising skills or their ability to impose party unity, but for their skills as consensus builders and dealmakers.

As for naive, I can’t imagine anything more naive than believing McCarthy can win the speakership with only Republican votes without empowering the zealots and insuring another two years of partisan grandstanding and gridlock.

Only something “naive” and “radical” can free Congress from the political straitjacket it has created for itself. The solution won’t come from party leaders who have amassed enormous power by stoking partisanship and entrenching party lines. It will not come from base voters trapped inside their media bubbles or the politicians who pander to them. It can only come when reasonable House members of both parties muster the courage, imagination and faith in each other to use the power they have always had to get important things done.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/12/29/congress-needs-bipartisan-speaker/

1) Best thing you have ever posted. 
2) I hope that a very few on here recognize that I have been pointing this out for several years here. 

The great mystery about our dysfunctional Congress is why so many of its members — good people from both parties who are serious about resolving the nation’s pressing problems — surrender their power to leaders and colleagues obsessed only with winning the next round of a partisan blood feud.

Surely they know that nothing will change if they continue to spend their days tweeting out partisan talking points, attending committee hearings that are mere political Kabuki, sitting through caucus meetings where party discipline is the only item on the agenda and dialing for dollars to win the next election so they can come back and do it all again.

And surely they understand that in a country and Congress so evenly divided, no party can long govern without a modicum of bipartisan cooperation.

3) I didnt write that but it is pretty much my sentiments for years. Politics in America has become so toxic that Bi-Partisanship is now not only a dirty word, it is the kiss of death for some in both parties. We truly have National Leadership Failures in DC. The Republicans became the Party of No, and the DNC became the Party of Demonization with their pals in the media.

Remember when milquetoast Mitt Romney was demonized in 2012? Former ally trump has been demonized, mostly fairly, but often unfairly too. When at the start of the COVID Crisis he ended travel to and from China, that wasnt over racism. It was just sound policy, God knows he rarely did that in 4 years. We now have Twitter Troll Armies on both sides that just act like Talking Point Monkeys and smear merchants.

4) The blame for all this resides ultimately with the Leadership in DC. As the author states, "good people from both parties who are serious about resolving the nation’s pressing problems — surrender their power to leaders and colleagues obsessed only with winning the next round of a partisan blood feud." The Blood Feud was enabled and driven by McConnell, Pelosi, Schumer, Waters, Jordan, Schiff, Nunez, etc. Their collective failures in leadership has wasted decades in DC. 

The author even points out where the leadership went to hell: "caucus meetings where party discipline is the only item on the agenda and DIALING FOR DOLLARS TO WIN THE NEXT ELECTION SO THEY CAN COME BACK AND DO IT ALL AGAIN."

[homersapien 11,440]

While I certainly agree with the articles suggestion, there is no party equivalence regarding this.

It started with Gingrich and has been reinforced ever since.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Nothing will change until money is removed from the political/governing process.

Capital is firmly in control of our country, the world.  The capitalist do not compete.  We compete for the capitalist.

Globalization for the sole benefit of the capital class has been a cataclysmic mistake.

The greatest achievement of capitalism was the creation of the middle class, the worker/consumer.  Global finance is destroying the middle class.  Global finance is sucking every penny it can out of every small town in this country, out of every corner of the world.

[GoAU 1,600]

I agree that our elected officials are more beholden to their parties than they are their constituents.  
 

I do find it funny that the author mentions his concern that the right might not work across party lines, but the Dems are far less likely to break party ranks, with perhaps the exception on Manchin.  

[DKW 86 7,440]

21 hours ago, homersapien said:

While I certainly agree with the articles suggestion, there is no absolute party equivalence regarding this.

It started with Gingrich and has been reinforced ever since.

FTFY. As for blind party allegiance over serving the public? There is absolute party equivalence. If the Dems wanted to be bipartisan they just completely blew the chance. They were in power for years and did nothing to serve the nation. They withdrew into meaningless partisanship, AND now want the Reps in the HOR to be bipartisan. They blew their change, no lie.

Edited January 1, 2023 by DKW 86

[homersapien 11,440]

6 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

FTFY. As for blind party allegiance over serving the public? There is absolute party equivalence. If the Dems wanted to be bipartisan they just completely blew the chance. They were in power for years and did nothing to serve the nation. They withdrew into meaningless partisanship, AND now want the Reps in the HOR to be bipartisan. They blew their change, no lie.r

BS

Democrats have their faults and have made their share of mistakes but if you think there is equivalence between them and Republicans regarding partisanship, you have been hibernating for 30 years.

When's the last time Democrats nominated or elected a candidate that tried to violently overturn our democracy while maintaining his position of party leadership?

Who's the Democratic Gingrich?  The Democratic McConnell? The Democratic Trump?

https://history.princeton.edu/about/publications/burning-down-house-newt-gingrich-fall-speaker-and-rise-new-republican-party

Burning Down the House: Newt Gingrich, the Fall of a Speaker, and the Rise of the New Republican Party

The story of how Newt Gingrich and his allies tainted American politics, launching an enduring era of brutal partisan warfare

When Donald Trump was elected president in 2016, President Obama observed that Trump “is not an outlier; he is a culmination, a logical conclusion of the rhetoric and tactics of the Republican Party.” In Burning Down the House, historian Julian Zelizer pinpoints the moment when our country was set on a path toward an era of bitterly partisan and ruthless politics, an era that was ignited by Newt Gingrich and his allies. In 1989, Gingrich brought down Democratic Speaker of the House Jim Wright and catapulted himself into the national spotlight. Perhaps more than any other politician, Gingrich introduced the rhetoric and tactics that have shaped Congress and the Republican Party for the last three decades. Elected to Congress in 1978, Gingrich quickly became one of the most powerful figures in America not through innovative ideas or charisma, but through a calculated campaign of attacks against political opponents, casting himself as a savior in a fight of good versus evil. Taking office in the post-Watergate era, he weaponized the good government reforms newly introduced to fight corruption, wielding the rules in ways that shocked the legislators who had created them. His crusade against Democrats culminated in the plot to destroy the political career of Speaker Wright.

While some of Gingrich’s fellow Republicans were disturbed by the viciousness of his attacks, party leaders enjoyed his successes so much that they did little collectively to stand in his way. Democrats, for their part, were alarmed, but did not want to sink to his level and took no effective actions to stop him. It didn’t seem to matter that Gingrich’s moral conservatism was hypocritical or that his methods were brazen, his accusations of corruption permanently tarnished his opponents. This brand of warfare worked, not as a strategy for governance but as a path to power, and what Gingrich planted, his fellow Republicans reaped. He led them to their first majority in Congress in decades, and his legacy extends far beyond his tenure in office. From the Contract with America to the rise of the Tea Party and the Trump presidential campaign, his fingerprints can be seen throughout some of the most divisive episodes in contemporary American politics. Burning Down the House presents the alarming narrative of how Gingrich and his allies created a new normal in Washington.

Edited January 1, 2023 by homersapien

[PUB78 1,362]

I am still in disbelief that Mitch was selected as Senate Minority Leader again. This old goat needs to go and new leadership and ideas are badly needed.

Isn’t insanity doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results? If so, this and Peloski are prime examples.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

The 535 people in congress are not controlled by 350,000,000 Americans.  Congress, the parties, are controlled by the wealthiest 400 Americans.

The political division in this country makes it possible.  That is why,,, they want you divided over mostly meaningless social issues.

The capital class only has one real objective, money and power.  Neo-liberal politics is all about entrenching wealth and power. 

 

[autigeremt 6,685]

8 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

The 535 people in congress are not controlled by 350,000,000 Americans.  Congress, the parties, are controlled by the wealthiest 400 Americans.

The political division in this country makes it possible.  That is why,,, they want you divided over mostly meaningless social issues.

The capital class only has one real objective, money and power.  Neo-liberal politics is all about entrenching wealth and power. 

 

Nice post! Seriously 

[homersapien 11,440]

On 1/1/2023 at 9:27 AM, DKW 86 said:

FTFY. As for blind party allegiance over serving the public? There is absolute party equivalence. If the Dems wanted to be bipartisan they just completely blew the chance. They were in power for years and did nothing to serve the nation. They withdrew into meaningless partisanship, AND now want the Reps in the HOR to be bipartisan. They blew their change, no lie.

What years are you referring to?

What "chances" of bipartisanship did they "blow"?

This is just empty rhetoric without providing examples.  In fact, a great deal of your iconoclastic posts consist of empty rhetoric sans examples. 
 

[DKW 86 7,440]

On 1/1/2023 at 12:48 PM, homersapien said:

Who's the Democratic Gingrich?  The Democratic McConnell? The Democratic Trump?

https://history.princeton.edu/about/publications/burning-down-house-newt-gingrich-fall-speaker-and-rise-new-republican-party

You are answering your own questions. Gingrich? Pelosi. McConnell? Schumer. Democrat trump? Clinton.

If the Dems wanted any bipartisanship they had plenty of time to do that over the last several years. 

Let me ask you where are the Reps baseless, ZERO Chance Impeachments? They could have hauled Biden up for 25th Amendment and several other charges. They wont. If the shoe was on the other foot? Well the Dems will drag the next Republican President up on Impeachment charges, it is their new business model. 

[DKW 86 7,440]

7 hours ago, homersapien said:

What years are you referring to?

What "chances" of bipartisanship did they "blow"?

Every piece of legislation is a chance for bipartisanship. Every single one. How about Build Back Better? 2-3 Republicans bought or trading pet projects and voila' Bipartisan legislation...

 

7 hours ago, homersapien said:

This is just empty rhetoric without providing examples.  In fact, a great deal of your iconoclastic posts consist of empty rhetoric sans examples. 
 

Excuse me. When do you ever answer a question? Ever? Almost every article or an editorial, you bring up, is head scratching BS from the word go. 

How about another one of your favorite "Never met the guy, never been in the same room, never been in the same building, never been in the same zip code"...oh but he is a textbook whatever said the drive-by psychoanalysis of some two bit partisan hack job. 😃

 

[homersapien 11,440]

14 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

You are answering your own questions. Gingrich? Pelosi. McConnell? Schumer. Democrat trump? Clinton.

If the Dems wanted any bipartisanship they had plenty of time to do that over the last several years. 

Let me ask you where are the Reps baseless, ZERO Chance Impeachments? They could have hauled Biden up for 25th Amendment and several other charges. They wont. If the shoe was on the other foot? Well the Dems will drag the next Republican President up on Impeachment charges, it is their new business model. 

You need to brush up on your Gingrich history.  You lost all credibility by equating Pelosi to him.

And all of the Trump impeachments were justified.

You've let your "both sides" complex overwhelm your objectivity.  It's almost comical.

 

https://history.princeton.edu/about/publications/burning-down-house-newt-gingrich-fall-speaker-and-rise-new-republican-party

Burning Down the House: Newt Gingrich, the Fall of a Speaker, and the Rise of the New Republican Party

The story of how Newt Gingrich and his allies tainted American politics, launching an enduring era of brutal partisan warfare

When Donald Trump was elected president in 2016, President Obama observed that Trump “is not an outlier; he is a culmination, a logical conclusion of the rhetoric and tactics of the Republican Party.” In Burning Down the House, historian Julian Zelizer pinpoints the moment when our country was set on a path toward an era of bitterly partisan and ruthless politics, an era that was ignited by Newt Gingrich and his allies. In 1989, Gingrich brought down Democratic Speaker of the House Jim Wright and catapulted himself into the national spotlight. Perhaps more than any other politician, Gingrich introduced the rhetoric and tactics that have shaped Congress and the Republican Party for the last three decades. Elected to Congress in 1978, Gingrich quickly became one of the most powerful figures in America not through innovative ideas or charisma, but through a calculated campaign of attacks against political opponents, casting himself as a savior in a fight of good versus evil. Taking office in the post-Watergate era, he weaponized the good government reforms newly introduced to fight corruption, wielding the rules in ways that shocked the legislators who had created them. His crusade against Democrats culminated in the plot to destroy the political career of Speaker Wright.

While some of Gingrich’s fellow Republicans were disturbed by the viciousness of his attacks, party leaders enjoyed his successes so much that they did little collectively to stand in his way. Democrats, for their part, were alarmed, but did not want to sink to his level and took no effective actions to stop him. It didn’t seem to matter that Gingrich’s moral conservatism was hypocritical or that his methods were brazen, his accusations of corruption permanently tarnished his opponents. This brand of warfare worked, not as a strategy for governance but as a path to power, and what Gingrich planted, his fellow Republicans reaped. He led them to their first majority in Congress in decades, and his legacy extends far beyond his tenure in office. From the Contract with America to the rise of the Tea Party and the Trump presidential campaign, his fingerprints can be seen throughout some of the most divisive episodes in contemporary American politics. Burning Down the House presents the alarming narrative of how Gingrich and his allies created a new normal in Washington.

Edited January 5, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,440]

16 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

 

Excuse me. When do you ever answer a question? Ever? Almost every article or an editorial, you bring up, is head scratching BS from the word go. 

How about another one of your favorite "Never met the guy, never been in the same room, never been in the same building, never been in the same zip code"...oh but he is a textbook whatever said the drive-by psychoanalysis of some two bit partisan hack job. 😃

 

Yeah?  Well you're still the same lying jerk you've always been. 

Edited January 5, 2023 by homersapien