Senate GOP Debates Its Future
Dueling memos from two of the Senate's most thoughtful members have sparked a welcome debate about the institution's future. It's worth paying attention to.
As my reader knows, one of my hobbies is occasionally guest-teaching a college class. Thanks to the estimable author and Reagan and Bush (41) Administration official Dr. Al Felzenberg and now others, I’m invited to share my knowledge and experience about the history and evolution of the United States Senate. I also do a similar talk on lobbying, which I’ve previously discussed in a five-part series.
I’m also a grizzled political operative of many years, having worked for two national GOP political committees (NRCC, NRSC) in 35 congressional campaigns in 25 states (a few more informally, including one Democrat). As a voracious polling consumer, I get (and share) that Americans are deeply frustrated with Congress and its inability to tackle important issues. Too many Members, especially in the House, are more interested in clicks to fundraising sites and headlines than consequential legislative results, often preferring to hold on to an issue rather than solving it.
In addition, Congress has delegated too much power to the Article II (executive) branch to finalize policies and placed too much pressure on the Article III (judicial) branch to resolve policy disputes that should have been left to Congress.
Fortunately, the Supreme Court has eschewed the Democratic dream of becoming a “super-legislature.” That’s why partisan threats to “pack the court” (increase its membership) by Democrats matter. By the time you read this, the Supreme Court hopefully will drive a dagger into the “Chevron” doctrine, overturning a horrid previous SCOTUS verdict that defers enormous policy and power to unelected federal agencies on major regulatory matters when Congressional statutes are vague. Rescinding the Chevron doctrine via a favorable decision on Loper v. Raimondo will force Congress to do its job. It’s high time. The only people who favor the Chevron doctrine are environmental and related nut cases who’ve deeply infected regulatory agencies. It is undemocratic.
Our Article I (legislative) branch has been broken for a while. It didn’t happen suddenly; honestly, you voters are largely responsible. You elect these people, especially dimbulbs in northwest Georgia and around Pensacola. At least certain New York voters have a high enough IQ to replace their local idiot. I’ll grant that our election system has created special interest monsters that often overpower individual citizens of their power and historical responsibility. I've also discussed that our campaign finance laws are outdated and a mess, but I don’t expect any solutions soon - too many partisans benefit from them (see above).
But all of us should be heartened by a fascinating discussion that’s emerged this week among US Senate Republicans about reforms to their conference and the US Senate, which is being aired openly. The Senate is no less broken than the House but for different reasons. The estimable Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Mike Lee (R-UT), both of whom I’ve had the privilege of knowing and working with, have taken leading, if somewhat “opposite” approaches.
It’s important. The Senate is the world’s longest-serving and continuous legislative body since April 6, 1789. Unlike the House, only a third of the Senate stands for election every two years (terms are six years). So, unlike the House, the Senate never truly “adjourns” or needs to reorganize. It just “continues” with new or, more often, reelected members.
Senator Tillis was a former Speaker of the North Carolina House and a management consultant before his election to the US Senate a decade ago when he unseated incumbent Democrat Kay Hagan. Senator Lee is the son of former Reagan Administration Solicitor General (the third-highest ranking officer in the Department of Justice, argued cases before the Supreme Court) Rex Lee. Mike Lee, Utah’s Senior Senator, was elected in 2010 when he unseated moderate GOP incumbent Bob Bennett in 2010, the famous founder of Franklin Quest and a leadership expert in his own right. The late Sen. Bennett chaired the Senate’s Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee when I was Secretary of the Senate and became a friend. But no matter, I was instantly impressed with Sen. Lee.
Lee is the Senate’s leading constitutional and legal expert and a noted author of at least five books, including “Our Lost Declaration,” “Our Lost Constitution,” and “Saving Nine” about the Supreme Court. Tillis, North Carolina’s Senior Senator, is a seasoned legislative veteran and an expert on organizational management. Each comes from different “wings” of the party: Lee is an outspoken and highly principled conservative champion, and Tillis, also a solid conservative, is more “establishment.” Each is a whip-smart, effective, influential, and highly respected leader in the Senate GOP conference.
So, what prompted this fascinating discussion, if not debate, between these two Senate titans? It began with 82-year-old Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) announcement that he would not seek election to another two-year term as the Leader. God willing, he will remain in the Senate until his six-year term ends after the November 2026 elections.
McConnell is the longest-serving party leader in the US Senate’s history. He’s been elected nine times as either Senate Majority or Minority Leader, succeeding Bill Frist (R-TN) after the 2006 elections. A battle has ensued to replace him, involving current Assistant GOP Leader John Thune (R-SD), former Assistant Leader John Cornyn (R-TX) and Rick Scott (R-FL). Another one or two may jump in - there's plenty of time.
These transitions, especially when they are competitive, are often times for contemplation and change.
Let’s go back to 1994, one of the most consequential elections of the 20th Century.
Republicans, led by House GOP Leader Newt Gingrich and his “Contract with America,” found themselves with a 54-seat gain that year and their first majority in 40 years. Republicans gained 9 seats (thanks partly to two-party switchers, Sens. Richard Shelby [R-AL] and Ben Nighthorse Campbell [R-CO]) and found themselves back in a majority after an 8-year absence.
The Senate GOP conference found itself with a new bevy of former House members who had been huge reformers in the “other body,” including newbies Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ), for whom I had served as his first House Chief of Staff. They brought several of their reformist ideas with them, including democratizing the Senate GOP conference. Interestingly, then-Senate GOP Leader Bob Dole, Assistant Leader Alan Simpson (R-WY), and especially Policy Chair Don Nickles (R-OK) and others embraced a concept of six-year term limits for committee chairs and leadership positions other than the Senate GOP Leader.
As Staff Director for the Senate GOP Policy Committee, I participated in those discussions in late 1994. “Old Bulls” saw the handwriting on the wall and acquiesced, knowing they could chair their committee for another six years. Term limits were instituted, and they remain in effect today. Dole drove much of that as he eyeballed a 1996 presidential campaign.
That was on top of the fact that all six leadership positions in the GOP are popularly elected by the Conference every two years, from Leader to the chair of the official campaign committee, the National Republican Senatorial Committee. I note in my college classes that on the Democratic side, it’s different. While they have the same leadership positions, thanks to the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (as amended), only the two top positions are elected by Democratic senators - Leader and Assistant Leader. The Leader gets to appoint all the others, plus broad powers to fill vacant committee seats. Rather undemocratic.
As I often say, the Senate Republican Conference is more “democratic” (small d) than its Democratic counterpart.
That brings us to the new debate between Sens. Tillis and Lee. Over the weekend, Tillis sent a “Dear Colleague” memo to fellow Senate Republicans, a thoughtful and respectful treatise on possible changes to Senate GOP conference rules that, in part, would reverse turn limits (rescind them) and further embolden or empower the Senate GOP leader, along the lines of the current Democratic Leader, Chuck Schumer. Tillis opened up his letter this way.
Several of you have asked me follow up questions about Democrat leadership structure and why I think it is so important that we consider proposals to strengthen not weaken the republican conference leader position when we fully engage in this discussion this fall.
Tillis advocated for eliminating term limits for leadership positions and committee chairs and strengthening the leader's ability to fill vacant committee positions and appoint, not elect, the official campaign committee chair, just like the Senate Democrats. He was clear that it was a launching point for a conversation and did not advocate specific rule changes “at this time.”
I advised several clients on organization design and execution in my management consulting career. Part of our process would include identifying practices of our client’s competitors and assessing their benefits and risk. I have reviewed the democrats’ conference rules and, should the Republican conference ever consider changes, they are worth bearing in mind. I am not advocating for any particular rule change at this time. I am presenting what I believe are fundamental reasons our conference behaves differently than theirs and providing food for thought on how we could address some of the frustrations of our members.
Lee responded with a letter of his own. In part:
Thom raises the point that no congressional conference has a term limit for its leader and suggests that this fact— and the fact that anyone can run against him—is sufficient for leaving the Senate Republican Leader exempted from the term limits that apply to every other elected Senate Republican leadership position.
I believe that term-limiting the Leader is a long-overdue reform that would allow future talent to rise within the Republican conference, thereby ensuring that the conference gets the best of new ideas, creative approaches to leadership, temperament, and talent.
While it is technically true that the Leader is open to challenge every two years, the reality is that the power of indefinite tenure disincentivizes any real effort to mount such a challenge. There is only risk in individual senators challenging a Leader who could easily remain in power for the rest of their time in the Senate, exercising significant control over their committee assignments, fundraising, etc.
Contributions made to the Leader’s superPAC are made for the intended purpose of regaining or retaining the Senate Republican majority. This is true regardless of who is Leader. While Mitch is a capable and talented fundraiser, we also believe that the donors who participate will continue to do so because they believe in the policies and principles espoused by all of us – not because they are exclusively loyal only to one of us.
The term limit debate is being played out publicly for members of Congress, other state and local officials, and within the Senate GOP conference.
I’m with Senator Lee on this. I get Sen. Tillis’s concerns that democratizing the GOP’s rules somewhat depowers the Leader’s negotiation powers with the Democratic leader and might make it more challenging to unify Republicans. Empowering individual senators would better serve the conference and the public. Democratic senators seem likelier to fall in line and do what they are told.
I can name several intellectual brightlights among GOP Senators, even if I don’t always agree with them: Ted Cruz (TX), Rand Paul (KY), Lee, Tillis, Marco Rubio (FL), James Lankford (OK), John Kennedy (LA), and Dan Sullivan (AK).
Can you name one truly independent thinker among the Democrats in the US Senate? Maybe Dick Durbin (D-IL) on food issues. Maybe Chris Murphy and his passion for gun confiscation and open borders. Certainly, Independent Angus King (I/D-ME) is a thoughtful Senator on national security issues.
Name another. I’ll wait. Okay, I’ll grant you that Socialist Bernie Sanders (I/D VT) is an “independent thinker.”
You can read the memos yourself and find that Lee and Tillis agree on some internal procedural issues. But this is one debate worth paying attention to for term limits alone.
Remind me: Which party is more “democratic?”
Your expertise on the Senate shines through this important column.