I don’t know if you had to be a poli sci major to enjoy it, but Robert Kaiser had a fascinating item in the Washington Post over the weekend about Congress, as an institution, ceding its power to the White House.
The notion of competition between the executive and the legislative branches has been a mainstay of political governing in the U.S. for about two centuries now. Regardless of partisanship or ideology, Congress, historically, has always fought tooth-and-nail to maintain control over the government’s political agenda. With the dawn of what Arthur Schlesinger called the Imperial Presidency, Congress has had to fight even harder to maintain its role.
But Kaiser painted a convincing picture over the weekend that Congress is not only relinquish its power to the White House; it’s doing so voluntarily.
[T]he fact that the House (and, not quite as starkly this winter, the Senate) can sit passively by in the midst of war, the prospect of record-setting budget and trade deficits and countless other national dilemmas is a symptom of a momentous change in the status of the legislative branch, whose powers were considered so important that the writers of the Constitution enumerated them in Article I, leaving the presidency and judiciary for Articles II and III.
In fundamental ways that have gone largely unrecognized, Congress has become less vigilant, less proud and protective of its own prerogatives, and less important to the conduct of American government than at any time in decades. “Congress has abdicated much of its responsibility,” Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel said in a recent conversation. “It could become an adjunct to the executive branch.”
Forgive the blogosphere cliché, but if this topic is even remotely interesting to you, read the whole article.
Throughout American history, the status and influence of the three branches of government, and particularly of the executive branch and Congress, have risen and fallen like great historical tides. For long periods, most dramatically in the last third of the 19th century, Congress was dominant. Arguably this was also true in the last quarter of the 20th century, after Congress brought an end to the Vietnam War and forced Richard M. Nixon from office. Even in the ’90s, Congress played a key role in replacing Reagan-era budget deficits with the large surpluses George W. Bush inherited when he became president in 2001.
But Congress’s influence has waned in the past few years, perhaps since the unpopular and unsuccessful effort to remove Bill Clinton from office in 1998-99. Though it occasionally resists an executive-branch proposal, Congress today rarely initiates its own policies. Few members speak up for the institutional interests of Congress. “The idea that they have an independent institutional responsibility, that the institution itself is bigger than the individuals or the parties, doesn’t occur to the bulk of [members] for a nanosecond,” said an exasperated Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute, a longtime student of Congress.
It occurs to Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee. He said that the House has given up the meaningful exercise of its powers by largely forfeiting its oversight role and abandoning all discipline on the federal budget. “Which means that this administration is essentially walking around with a free hand . . . . If the Congress is turned into a jellyfish, there are no checks and there are no balances.” Jellyfish isn’t a bad image for the backbone Congress has shown in recent times.
Partly this is the consequence of one-party government. Now that Republicans control the White House, the House and Senate for the first time in half a century — for the first time since the modern, conservative Republican Party assumed its modern personality in the 1980s — congressional Republicans behave like players on a football team, said Mickey Edwards, a member of the House Republican leadership until he lost his Oklahoma seat in a 1992 primary. Edwards now teaches at Princeton. “George W. is the quarterback, and you go with your team,” he said. Because the Republicans enjoy such small majorities, team discipline is all the fiercer.
I think this is true, but it’s wholly inconsistent with the institutions’ historical roles. The executive and the legislative branches were designed to competing bodies, as part of a dynamic that ensures checks and balances. The model Mickey Edwards describes makes Bush out to be something of a prime minister, chosen by a legislative majority to head up the governing political party.
These changes have been pushed to new depths by the Bush White House. As Kaiser noted, the Bush White House has “repeatedly bullied the Congress, usually successfully, to accept executive authority and decisions without challenge.”
As Congress’ role diminishes, the structural changes have an impact on the political process overall. Congress works less, in a more divisive fashion, in an environment where principal takes a back seat to victory.
It’s fascinating stuff. Take a look.