Where Are The Statesmen (and Women)?
Used to be that our elected leaders knew when to drop the partisan cudgels and do the right thing. When will those leaders emerge? Hello, anyone home?
Partisanship has been a prominent feature of American politics since political parties emerged sometime during George Washington’s second term as President. Finding and maneuvering for partisan advantage is both a feature and a bug of congressional leadership. Governing often takes a back seat, but when necessary, it moves behind the wheel of a car careening towards a cliff, thwarting a Thelma and Louise-style result.
Even during the 1990s, when I served as a Senate GOP leadership staff director and then as Secretary of the Senate, I recall the weekly policy lunches each Senate party caucus still holds every Tuesday. Engineering votes were often discussed to box in the Other Team or gain partisan and financial (campaign fundraising) advantages. Those sessions are off the record, even from back then, so I’ll have to resist sharing stories for now, but it’s fair to characterize them. It’s not a secret. Democrats do the same thing.
But sometimes, calmer and wiser heads realize a severe crisis brews and the partisan cudgels must be kept at the door. At the same time, they do the serious job of bipartisan legislation, just as the Constitution’s framers envisioned.
That last happened about a decade ago when House GOP Speaker John Boehner and President Obama (with an assist from then-Vice President Joe Biden, back when he was a functioning adult) engineered a compromise on spending. It was imperfect, even flawed, but it led to serious spending growth reductions through “sequestration.” Yes, it harmed and seriously set back our military (as if the Obama Administration wasn’t doing that already), but that was the trade-off for capping Democratic-favored domestic (i.e., welfare) spending. Federal spending declined, if briefly (see chart below).
Despite that laudable effort to trim federal spending growth, our public debt has grown to $33 trillion and will climb past $40 trillion by the decade's end, if not sooner. And that doesn’t include a possible taxpayer bailout as part of a much-needed rescue of Social Security and Medicare, whose trust funds will dry up in 2035. It includes the revenue from expiring Trump Tax Cut provisions (Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017). Prepare for an immediate 25 percent cut in Social Security retirement payments and physician reimbursements within 12 years. Yay, that will end well.
Boehner was not rewarded for his leadership. He resigned in deep frustration as Speaker, largely thanks to the House Freedom Caucus, in 2015.
The Freedom Caucus won their scalp, and they appear to be hunting for another.
The most famous example of putting country over partisanship in modern history was the 1983 Social Security Reform Act. Our nation’s largest social insurance program was about to run out of money, suddenly cutting benefits to 40 million older and disabled Americans and their survivors. Republican Senate Leader Bob Dole, Democratic House Speaker Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill, and President Ronald Reagan checked their weapons at the door. They crafted a bipartisan compromise that they said would work for about 40 years. They were right, and time’s up. It included things everyone wanted and hated, from gradually phasing in a higher retirement age to raising payroll taxes. It also included both parties' promises not to use the Social Security rescue for political purposes. They lived up to it, at least for one election.
My friend Mark Strand, recently retired head of the Congressional Institute, former Hill staffer, and author of a terrific new blog, “Politics and Sausage Making” (pro tip: you should subscribe), profoundly wrote this week how our founders and framers designed our government to eschew the concentration of power and foment bipartisan consensus. He also noted how that’s gone awry lately, thanks to a small but noisy cadre of House Freedom Caucus members. I would also add the unilateral wrecking of a perfectly reasonable dress code by the Senate’s Majority Leader to accommodate one dysfunctional Senator from the increasingly dysfunctional Keystone State.
From that perspective, the failure of a one-party faction in Congress to do its job is precisely what the Constitution intended. The idea that Rep. Matt Gaetz could block his party, much less the entire House, from performing its essential Constitutional duties indicates that Congress should stop acting like a parliamentary government. It takes two parties to govern – as it should.
Politics has gone from being like a sport where one team wins to a war where one team tries to destroy the other. Like in combat, an army will lose if it is fighting itself. When a handful of members pull the pin from the grenade to threaten to kill their fellow soldiers, that faction needs to be neutralized. No army fighting its opponents will survive if it allows a mutinous fifth column to shoot them in the back while they are manning the front lines.
I’m as conservative as they come. I favor reducing the size and scope of the federal government as much as any House Freedom Caucus member—maybe more. I can’t find the attribution, but Richard Nixon reportedly said that the federal government could be cut 25 percent, and no one would notice. I still agree with that, as does Vivek Ramaswamy, who promises to go much farther if elected President. Heart, be still.
Reducing the size and scope of government is the key to addressing most of our public policy issues, from cutting deficit spending and reducing the corrupt influence of money in politics to sensible election reform and administration. The growth of government spending and control makes political power more attractive, raising its stakes and not in a good way. The worst among us become desperate to win, no matter the cost, with the ends justifying the means.
Spending on political campaigns in 2020 exceeded $14 billion, more than double since 2008. Over half of Americans (including me) rely on one or more federal programs, from Social Security and Medicare (now 70 million) to supplemental nutrition assistance (food stamps, 45 million). Millions more rely on veterans benefits, disability, health care assistance (Medicaid), federal retirement pensions (hand raised, again), and federally subsidized school meals. Never mind four or so million federal civilian employees and active duty military.
Raise your hand if you’re also waiting for your passport application to be renewed or awarded or, in my case, your Global Entry application to be approved. The latter is taking up to a year.
And don’t forget all the free transportation, food, housing, and other services at least 3.8 million migrants (some say it’s higher, much higher, and almost half crossed illegally) are getting from traversing our open and mismanaged southern border since Joe Biden took office.
That’s why a part of me applauds and cheers the assertive agenda of the 45-member House Freedom Caucus (their counterpart, the far-left House Progressive Caucus, has 100 members), co-founded by former US House Member, Florida Governor and GOP Presidential candidate Ron DeSantis, current House Judiciary Committee chair Jim Jordan (R-OH) and others a decade or so ago. I’ve met and know of a few members, and they’re patriots. My problem with them isn’t their agenda but their poorly conceived strategies, tactics, and antics. They are their own worst enemies.
But the fact is that problems are going unresolved, and Republicans only “control,” if you can call it that, a very slim majority in one-half of one-half of our Article I and II lawmaking branches of government (not counting the Article III judicial branch). Congress will not complete its 13 major annual appropriation bills on time (again) when the Fiscal Year ends next weekend. It will likely result in an annoying, if not disruptive, federal programs and agencies shutdown, including stopping paychecks for our military service people.
It’s OK to make your point and negotiate aggressively, even publicly sometimes, but you must do your job and govern at some point. And that time is now.
You’ve seen this act before. The Biden Administration will pounce to make a shutdown as painful (for you) as possible, shutting down even open-air federal monuments and parks while blaming Republicans, borrowing from the Obama Administration’s playbook. This will not end well for those few recalcitrants tying Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s hands, whose party will become the javelin catchers of public political recrimination, all to get attention and raise campaign cash from people who don’t know better. “Nonessential” federal workers will get some extra time off and eventually paid for it once the spending spigots are turned back on.
Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-FL and Newsmax), Matt Rosendale (R-MT), Andy Biggs (R-AZ), Ken Buck (R-CO), and Ralph Norman (R-SC), especially either lack foresight or bizarrely want to help Democrat Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) become Speaker of the House. Their end game reeks of ignoble defeat, their sound and fury accomplishing nothing.
Political recriminations may extend to off-year elections in Virginia, Kentucky, Louisiana, and New Jersey this November—especially the first two states. Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R-VA) and fellow Commonwealth Republicans, for all their impressive political operations, will know where to point fingers if things fall short.
With all that said, why would Jeffries and his fellow House Democrats reach out to help McCarthy and avoid this embarrassing spectacle of self-immolation by Gaetz and company? There’s no evidence that Jeffries does, but there is a bipartisan group of Members, the Problem Solvers Caucus - 32 Republicans, 32 Democrats - who want to govern, at least in the short term, through this mess. Most of these Members represent somewhat politically marginal districts.
US Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) is a freshman House Member and one of the “Problem Solver” caucus members who has had enough. He’s promoting a discharge petition designed to get a clean (no amendments, no policy riders) “continuing resolution” through the House to avoid a shutdown. Democrats already have 213 signatures on it. If five Republicans sign on, it forces a vote that is likely to pass.
Matt and his gang, who can’t shoot straight, aren’t the only ones who can play this game.
Lawler spoke with Hugh Hewitt on Friday about working with many of the recalcitrant Freedom Caucus members:
“I’ve sat through hours of meetings and negotiations with these folks over the last 72 hours. And they continually move the goalposts. As I’ve said, they don’t know how to take yes for an answer. They don’t know how to define a win. They don’t know how to work as a team. And so ultimately, we’re left in a position where responsible people need to be the adults in the room. There are at least five of us, which is all that is needed, to sign a discharge petition, which would allow a bill to come to the floor for a vote.
It sure looks like the Matt Gaetzs of the world have finally worn out their welcome.
Sadly, they made this personal and are more interested in toppling Speaker McCarthy. They should think through how that would work and how it might look, not to mention the result. A nightmare scenario, suggested by Fox News congressional correspondent Chad Pergram on Ben Domenech’s estimable podcast this week, outlined how that may play out.
Suppose Democrats join a dozen or so Republicans to support a privileged motion to “vacate the chair” as the government is shutting down this week or next. In that case, everything stops until a new Speaker is elected. And we remember how that went in January when it took 15 rounds of voting over several days. It could take longer this time, with a bipartisan consensus candidate to McCarthy’s left emerging. Then what will the recalcitrants have achieved? Uniting both the House and Americans against them?
Side note: It’s not in Donald Trump’s interest for the situation to deteriorate. Even if Trump were nominated and won, losing the US House would result in another series of impeachments. Here we go again.
Despite the shenanigans displayed elsewhere, we should be heartened by two things in Congress this week. First, bipartisan Senators are working to reinstate common-sense dress codes over Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s unilateral and ill-advised decision to let one Senator dress like a slob; and second, bipartisanship and responsible governance are raising their heads, finally, in the US House over this unnecessary shutdown spectacle.
I know a few of my friends on the right will complain that it’s always them who are being asked - demanded - to compromise. That’s not true. The hard left constantly whines and makes their share of demands, but ultimately, they’re much better at team politics because they appreciate incrementalism - they’re very good at it - and see the longer game. With many hardliners on the right, it’s always my way or the highway, right now, with zero foresight, driving off the cliff with flags flying with eyes focused on their fundraising haul instead of the canyon below.
One last note on Social Security. Many believe that nearly all seniors (I now qualify) are so greedy that they will oppose anything that trims their promised benefits in any fashion.
I understand that for those who didn’t save and invest in their working lives. Social Security was designed to be a supplemental retirement program. As for me, I’m all for slowing the growth rate by trimming annual benefit increases. They’re not “cost of living” increases - they’re increases in the “wage index,” which accrue even higher benefits. I’ll take a hit to preserve the program and keep payroll taxes down for my children and grandchildren. Some seniors may be selfish, but I bet more of us are patriots.
If the recalcitrants want to make points, they should leave Congress and sign up with Newsmax (Gaetz is a talented performer on Newsmax as a frequent guest host) or a similar outlet (Ken Buck is reportedly looking to sign a deal with CNN) and leave responsible governance to serious legislators who aren’t trolling for campaign cash or media contracts.
I have another suggestion for Freedom Caucus members. Go win some elections aside from your own. Raise money for other campaigns.
Boy this is spot on. As Yuval Levin pointed out in National Review, it is almost as if the extremists see the legislative process itself (negotiating with the other side) as corrupting. But the purpose of Congress is for diverse people from every part of the country to elect representatives who will advocate, debate, and bargain on their behalf in an atmosphere of order and respect. No one gets to elect a representative to dictate on their behalf.
As usual an essential read.