If you want to be a Star forget bipartisanship

If You want to be a Star, Forget Bipartisanship

There are two kinds of politicians: those who want to be stars and those who want to accomplish something. You can very quickly spot the former. Politicians, who want to be stars are visible because they are not interested in bipartisanship.  During the time I was in the legislature from 1970 to 1987 and then in the Congress from 1989 to 1994, there was great bipartisanship in many legislative bodies across the country.  When Newt Gingrich came to the Congress in 1984, he assessed the political situation and came to the conclusion, that bipartisanship would never lead to a Republican takeover of Congress.  He decided that, in order for the Republicans to take over, there had to be an end to bipartisanship.

In the early 1980’s Gingrich began his assault on bipartisanship by attacking members of the Democratic caucus through the use of charges of ethics violation.  A long series of attacks were made in the late 1980s.  Accusations were leveled at Democratic members on issues including financial corruption, sexual activities and other violations of House rules.  The ethics committee was central to this attack on the Democratic caucus.  The goal was clear; disgrace the Democratic caucus.

When I arrived in Congress there were charges circulating against Dan Rostenkowski, Charlie Wilson, Tom Foley and members who had accounts in the House bank.  The House bank was established sometime in the 1850s to deal with the problems of members who were living in Washington, DC and far from their home banking establishment.  Members paychecks were deposited in the bank and members wrote checks to cover their various financial obligations.  Not infrequently, a members’ account would be overdrawn: sometimes because, a spouse had written a check or members knew their check was coming in a day or so, and wrote checks in anticipation that the account would receive the money before the check would reach its destination.  This process functioned as a rudimentary overdraft protection which was being installed in most bank accounts at that time.  Members were routinely called by the Sergeant at arms staff to inform them that their account was overdrawn.  Deposits were made or a new month started, and no money was ever lost.

This situation was characterized by Newt Gingrich as a corrupt bank that the Democratic Party was running in the House of Representatives.  An investigation was begun by the ethics committee and I was one of four members who looked over all 435 accounts.  The banking scandal, as it was called, was so toxic that all members records were opened up for public view.  The perception of members bouncing checks was perceived by the public as a horrible perk that members of Congress enjoyed and resulted in dozens of members losing their seats in the next Congress.  Newt Gingrich didn't care how many Republicans lost because he knew that more Democrats would lose and thus increase his chances to take over the House.  This all occurred in the session of 1991-1992.

In this session of 1993 -- 1994 Bill Clinton was the new president.  Charges were brought against Dan Rostenkowski and once again the ethics committee was charged with investigation of his alleged corruption.  I was the chairman of the ethics committee during that period, having been appointed by Speaker Thomas Foley.

During this same period the Congress was considering a universal health care program presented by Mrs. Clinton.  The Republicans were desperate to kill this plan because they believed that, if the Congress passed health care for all, the public would support them without question and thus the Republicans would never have a chance to take over power in the House.  The history of success of the Democratic Party since the passage of the Social Security act of 1935 was an ominous sign to the Republicans that if the Democrats succeeded, they would face another 60 years with the Democrats in power. That is why Trump and the Republicans are so dead set against Obamacare today.

The Democrats struggled during the session of 1993-94, just as they did in 2009 – 2010, to enact health care for all.  The bill was poised to pass out of the Ways and Means committee of which Dan Rostenkowski was the chairman.  Dan Rostenkowski was arguably the most powerful man in the House. We may never know why the Justice Department decided to bring charges in federal court against Dan Rostenkowski at that moment.  This threw the Congress into a massive state of confusion and no vote was ever taken on the floor of the House on health care for all. Mrs. Clinton’s effort failed here. A little thing to remember is that is always easier to kill an idea than it is to give birth to an idea.

In order to deal with the economic problems of the country, President Clinton asked for new taxes to be passed in order to begin reducing the debt of this country.  The tax bill was passed without a single Republican vote and set us on a course over the next six years to have our first budget surplus in many years.  However, the campaign of 1994 was a run as a referendum on the corrupt Democratic House caucus.  Newt Gingrich succeeded in that election and the Republicans took over for the first time in 40 years.

Every freshman class in the past had had an orientation at the Kennedy school of Government where issues were presented from the right and center and the left.  The Kennedy School faculty was careful not to present a biased approach to any issue whether it was the environment or taxes or energy or war or whatever.  In order to strengthen his partisan approach to government Newt Gingrich took the Republicans freshmen in January 1995 to the American Heritage Institute in order that they not be come acquainted with their Democratic colleagues and be kept ideologically pure.

Prior to 1995 bills and appropriations were done on a bipartisan basis in the majority of occasions.  After the election of 1994 the Republicans and, particularly the speaker, controlled the flow of legislation that largely excluded participation by committees and especially by Democratic members.  The Democrats quickly learned what the nature of the new Congress was to be: partisan in everything.

Suddenly the air was filled with numerous ethical complaints against Newt Gingrich.  Since that time the Congress has been in almost continuous combat in the ethics committee.  Members on both sides of the aisle have been attacked for matters large and small, with the only real goal, being to smear the other side.

As one thinks about power as one of the elements that drives members participation in the political process, one quickly realizes that partisanship is the best way to get power.  Bipartisanship, by its very nature, suggests power-sharing and Newt realized that a minority can never get control in a bipartisan arrangement.  There will always be more left center leaning Democrats than there are right leaning Republicans.

One example, from the Appropriations Committee, is an illustration of this concept.  The subcommittee chairmen of the Appropriations Committee are called “Cardinals”.  The Cardinals would sit down with their ranking member, who is the highest senority member of the minority party, and allocations would be made of the money to be appropriated in that area.  The majority member would control 70% of the money and the minority member would control 30% money.  This bipartisan approach gave the minority some impact on the process and did not exclude them totally.  When Newt took over, these allocations were no longer made, and funding decisions were made totally by the speaker and his leadership group.  This style of leadership persisted to the speakership of Dennis Hastert.  It was largely implemented by his majority leader Tom DeLay who took over the day-to-day running of the House.  During that period from 1995 until 2007 the House of Representatives was run on a strictly partisan basis.  The Republican members were disciplined if they voted with the Democrats, so the moderate Republicans found it increasingly difficult to remain in the house and vote as they saw fit to represent their constituents.  The Republican caucus took on the appearance of the parliamentarian systems like Great Britain or other European countries.

After 12 years of this regime Democrats won control in 2006.  Most of the new members coming in, or those that had been elected in the previous 12 years, knew no other form of legislative operation.  That process established by Newt Gingrich has been continued by the Democratic leadership.  Older members who remembered a previous style of operation tried to reestablish, in some instances, the old system but it was always overridden by decisions made at the level of the leadership.  The regular order of legislation, which exists in the rules, was largely abandoned first, by Gingrich, and then by the subsequent Democratic leadership.  Absolute power was the goal of both sides.  Members who were elected and wanted absolute power were pleased.  Members, who understood that a democracy cannot solve the complicated problems it faces by looking to only one side of the issue, were and are very frustrated.

The election of Barak Obama brought to the head of the political process, someone who tried to reestablish the principal of bipartisanship.  His hope was that this nation could solve its problems by having all sides heard in the debate.  The first session showed the Republicans refusal to relinquish the strategy of partisanship as they said, “No! No! No.”  I am at a loss to suggest how this grab for absolute power can be changed.  I sometimes believe that only a real catastrophe for this country will cause us to return to the principal that we must seek the common good.  To do that, we must listen to everyone as we make the decisions in our government.  The majority will ultimately make the decisions, but the process of listening to disagreeing views is important, if we are to find answers that will both work and be acceptable to the population.