Taking the high road

December 27, 2006

(The comment discussion from a few hours ago in this post was so interesting, I thought I’d write up a free-standing post on the subject and explore the issue in more detail.)

Regular readers may recall that we had a Sunday Discussion Group the week of the November elections in which we considered how, exactly, the new Democratic majority would conduct business on Capitol Hill. The choices were fairly straightforward: Dems could act like the Republicans acted for 12 years, or they could act the way a majority is supposed to act.

The New York Times highlighted today which path the new Dem leadership has chosen. Not surprisingly, they’re taking the high road.

After chafing for years under what they saw as flagrant Republican abuse of Congressional power and procedures, the incoming majority has promised to restore House and Senate practices to those more closely resembling the textbook version of how a bill becomes law: daylight debate, serious amendments and minority party participation.

Beyond the parliamentary issues, Democrats assuming control on Jan. 4 said they also wanted to revive collegiality and civility in an institution that has been poisoned by partisanship in recent years.

Under the Republican majority, legislation was written without Dem input; bills were passed without letting Dems read it; Dems’ bills were denied hearings and votes; Dems weren’t allowed to offer amendments to legislation; Dems weren’t even allowed to use hearing rooms. If Dems managed to win a key vote on the floor, Republicans would simply keep the vote open — literally for hours, if necessary — until enough arms could be twisted and/or lawmakers bribed. Being a congressional Democrat in recent years was frequently nothing short of humiliating.

Now, the process is going to be far more pleasant. Or, at least, it’s going to start out that way.

Dennis Hastert was poised to get a lousy office-space assignment, so Nancy Pelosi intervened and got him a better one. Pelosi has also reached out to House Minority Leader John Boehner to help create a task force on congressional ethics rules and supervision of the page program. For the first time in 12 years, conference committees will actually have members of the minority party participating.

The NYT added that the new Dem leadership has issued a statement of principles that “calls for regular consultation between the Democratic and Republican leaders on the schedule and operations of the House and declares that the heads of House committees should do the same.”

So, how will Republicans respond to these open and democratic conditions? We’ll see.

…Republicans are hoping Democrats stick to their guns and allow the minority a stronger voice on legislation. The opposition leadership said it would take the opportunity to put forward initiatives that could be potentially troublesome for newly elected Democrats in Republican-leaning districts who within months will have to defend their hard-won seats.

“There are going to be days when we will offer alternatives in ways that are going to be very appealing to Democrats in districts the president carried just two years ago,” said Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, who will be the second-ranking House Republican in the 110th Congress.

Republicans see the ability to force tough votes — which they avoided in the majority by stifling Democratic alternatives — as having two potential benefits: It can put vulnerable Democrats on record with positions that might not be popular at home, or it can fracture the untested Democratic majority. Mr. Blunt noted that even senior Democrats who served in Congress when Democrats held control had no experience dealing with a relatively thin, 16-seat majority that will not allow many lawmakers to avoid tough votes.

I like the idea of changing the way Congress operates; the last 12 years have been downright embarrassing. But, as Kos noted, “This is an era of hardball politics, and the GOP clearly has no intention to play nice.” I suspect he’s right — and I hope Pelosi, Hoyer, & Co. keep it in mind.

I expect these to be mostly cosmetic changes- the type which will put a good press spin on the ‘inclusive’ Democrats. Both Reid and Pelosi have been shown to be good shadow players, and I don’t see either giving any substantial ground, unless there is a fringe benefit to be had (for example, maybe solidifying the ability to filibuster in the Senate- doing away with the nuclear option or somesuch- as a hedge against the future).

If they are anything which benefits the Republifucks, however, without benefitting the Democrats (even in a hedge situation), then this would need to stop. No need to be collegial with animals.

  • If the Republicans chart a belligerent course of greater and greater abuse of “commodity” and obstructionism, then the Democrats should respond in kind with greater and greater restrictions on the minority ( a gradualistic approach). Turning the screws bit by bit rather than “running over to their neighbors” and clubbing them with a baseball bat will have a greater effect and better PR value.

  • CB I think you have written something that should be an integral part of Congressional sessions. At the beginning of each discussion on the floor of the Senate or House and before each committe meeting, the Chairperson should say, “Although…

    Under the Republican majority, legislation was written without Dem input; bills were passed without letting Dems read it; Dems’ bills were denied hearings and votes; Dems weren’t allowed to offer amendments to legislation; Dems weren’t even allowed to use hearing rooms. If Dems managed to win a key vote on the floor, Republicans would simply keep the vote open — literally for hours, if necessary — until enough arms could be twisted and/or lawmakers bribed. Being a congressional Democrat in recent years was frequently nothing short of humiliating.

    and then begin the meeting in as congenial a manner as Republicans have shown themselves willing to now do.

  • Jeebus, notice the tone of the Republican’ts (can’t be civil):
    We’re glad they will play nice , ’cause it will give us a chance to fuck them over.
    Don’t call them RepubliFucks, it’s too insulting to all the other stupid Fucks.
    Sorry for the language, I keep thinking of the people killed & maimed in their war, and it gives me temporary Tourette’s Syndrome.

  • Pelosi and Reid:

    “We don’t play by the rules because we think we have to be nice to the Republicans. We play by the rules because they exist to prevent corruption of the system, a fact demonstrated by twelve years of Republican domination. And we play by the rules because they are rules, a fact ignored by Republican leaders for twelve years.”

    ‘Nuf said!

  • Taking the high road may be good publicity but it may also be merely pragmatic. The Democrats do not have the bullet-proof majorities and certainly not the lockstep mentality of Republishits. With such slim majorities to work with, especially in the Senate where the number one twit, Lieberman, still holds power, Democrats are going to have put aside the justifiable desire for some payback and take the straight-and-narrow path if they want to acheive their legislative agenda.

  • Dems better realize the first time they devate from the “nice script” people like Chris Matthews and Howard Kurtz are going to hit them hard that they are not following the tone of civility they promised…….

    People like Rush and OReilly will decry the bitter partisanship and operating outside of the rules of civility that our forefathers envisioned…..

    What is good for the goose is NOT good for the gander

    While I applaud these efforts……DEMS better lay down the law and drop the civility if things are getting done to their liking….its their show now….dont let Repubs ruin your efforts in order to secure votes in 2008 midterms and Presidential election……

  • Ah, screw Rush, O’Reilly, Kurtz and Matthews.

    What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

    What is important is not avoiding the derision of pundits like this, but of maintaining standards of conduct that protect the American people from stupidity and corruption like Jack Abramoff and WORSE, Randy “Duke” Cunningham who used earmarking to give the U.S. Military inferior solutions to IEDs that lead to more dead and maimed servicemen and more profit for his contributors.

  • This is a two way street. But I bet Republicans break before Democrats. Those Republicans that are left seem to be of the variety that started the ramped-up hostility that has marked politics for the last 15 or so years and lack of bipartisanship seems to be much more of a Republican failing lately.

  • Don’t expect civility to be a two way street. A close friend of Dennis Hastert (who isn’t in government) is a close friend of my parents. So at Christmas dinner at my folks house, my mom says something in the kitchen about what an awful person Nancy Pelosi is. She had the nerve to hand the gavel backwards to our Speaker of the House! And this is two minutes after she remarked that Hastert’s new office is pretty nice even though he is no longer Speaker.

    Normally I let these things pass, but I just said she has a LONG way to go in order to catch Dick Cheney telling Pat Leahy what to do with himself on the Senate floor. And that if Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II were Democrats, we would here the same stories about how nasty they are like we did about Chelsea Clinton. My wife stopped me before I brought up Jenna and the unemployed Argentine boyfriend.

    So the crap is starting, regardless of how civil the Democrats are.

  • Like slip kid no more (@3), I’d be inclined to “play nice” incrementally, by degrees. Only, I’d do the reverse: prove to me that you can handle responsibility, before I allow you to have a bit more of it. Civil, yes; friendly, no. Or not until you proved to have reformed. Which, in practice, probably means “never”, given the ‘publican congressional “material” Pelosi and Read have to deal with.

    Play by the rules, but stick to them like a limpet; it’s not as if they were “winner takes all” rules, the way ‘publicans interpreted them. Not that I think it’s gonna make any difference to the perception the publicans will try to hang on us; they’ll see sticking to the rules as “cruel and unusual”and will whine about it as ever. People who felt persecuted when they were in majority and had *everything* working their way… You think they’ll appreciate niceties?

    I bet that Hastert, once he got over the initial surprise, figured a fancy office was no more than his due. He and Pelosi should have simply traded offices — whatever she had before, should have been good enough for him now. IMO.

  • what libra said.

    Th Republicrooks will act persecuted no matter what. Might as well ram some good stuff through for them to complain about.

    • Comments are closed.