Who Screwed up Congress and How?

English speaking people have been struggling with how to govern themselves for hundreds of years. Developing a democratic form of government is not easy because there is not a simple structure to keep the majority satisfied.

By comparison, autocratic governance is relatively easy. One person, be he or she, a sovereign or sultan or Tsar or a dictator holds absolute power until he or she doesn’t. War, assassination, disease or royal intrigue leave the people outside the decision-making process of a society. Serfs can riot or rebel at paying taxes but in the end, the autocratic government prevails. If it doesn’t prevail another autocrat may assume power or you may have a revolution where the power goes into the hands of the people. Louis XVI prophesied, “Apres Moi, Le deluge.”

Le Deluge(the  Flood) is a chaotic time in any society.  There are always those, who pine for the King and his strong leadership, but the masses are in search of their own governance.  Government of the people, by the people and for the people is their goal. In American history we scarcely ever talk about the era of the Articles of Confederation which was our first stab at self-governance. We brush over that period quickly to get to the myth that the Constitution was written by God and handed down to a group of landed white men in a secret meeting.  It is reminiscent of Moses and the ten Commandments.

 There is a story of Benjamin Franklin meeting a woman on the street in Philadelphia as he was coming out of the Constitutional Convention. Her question to Mr Franklin was, “What kind of government do we have?” He replied, “A republic, if we can keep it.” In retrospect it was as prescient as Louis XVI.

Before the creation of parliaments and other legislative bodies, political discussion took place in the streets, taverns, churches and homes. Getting the political discussion focused in the parliament made daily living easier.  One was not constantly confronting mobs of angry citizens. Political problems were expected to be resolved by the representative bodies.

What defines a representative body? Is it only landed white men or is it all white men or is it all white people or is it white people and their former slaves? Should we included the indigenous people who were here before God gave the North American continent to white people?

We have been refining that question for almost 250 years.  In its evolution the Congress became a place where the problems of a civil society could be hotly debated and then, by a majority vote, a decision could be reached about a solution to a problem that was  based on the common good as it was understood at the time.

The concept of separate powers for 3 branches of government was specifically designed to protect against ever having an autocratic government. One King George was enough for us. We wanted no more taxation without representation.  We did not want a government dominated or controlled by the military.  There were lots of things to be against but the question remained: what are those things that are in the common good which we want for all citizens.

The concept of the common good hasn’t changed much. Food, housing, clothing to protect against the weather, ample education for all the children, peace with our enemies, care when there is illness or injury and the hope for a peaceful period of aging. As time has passed and we have gotten more knowledge, we have added to the list. Clean air, clean water, protection from the ravages of the free enterprise system and the natural world and a longer, more satisfying life through advances in medical care. As time has passed the problems have become more complex and solutions more difficult to achieve.

In the midst of this ever-changing political world, the Congress had evolved into a two-party system.  One party or the other had control for long periods but as new problems emerged, loose unofficial coalitions emerged as a way of keeping the decision making on track.

When I got to Congress in 1989 the Democrats had been in charge for 52 of the preceding 56 years. Informal arrangements allowed business to get done.  For example, on the Appropriations Committee the world was divided into 14 spheres of influence:  Education and Labor, Military, Agriculture etc. Each chairman of one of these areas was called a Cardinal(reminiscent of the days when church and state were one and the same). Each Cardinal received his allocation of the general fund and he decided who got what. The senior Republican, who was called the ranking member, got 30+% of the money and the Cardinal kept the rest to distribute to the Democrats on the committee. Each Democratic member had a certain allocation to spread among the members from his or her region. Norm Dicks was my Cardinal.

Individual members had to present a list of wishes/recommendations to your Cardinal on the Committee. Everyone dealt with this process differently.  My office had requests from local and state government, transportation requests, social and health service requests, natural resource requests and art and cultural museums. We struggled to prioritize them and then published our list on the internet so all the world could see and comment.  And they did. “Why am I not higher than someone else?” was the usual question from the public.

This was the process by which members brought home the “Bacon”. If you got more than your share, people wondered how you did it or If you didn’t bring an acceptable amount, you were, considered to be delinquent, in your duties. As the government grew and grew, taking on more responsibilities that local governments couldn’t seem to handle, the Conservative movement in the United States became fearful that Congress would become like European socialist governments that took care of people from cradle to grave. They were so fearful after the election of Lyndon Johnson and his efforts to create a Great Society that they commissioned a Wall Street lawyer named Lewis Powell to write a plan to stop the spread and indeed to roll back, of the advancing Socialist agenda. It should be required reading for all the incoming members of Congress in the class of 2017. If they did this,  they would have some framework to understand where they were in time.

 Lewis Powell did a masterful job in setting out a plan in 1972. Electing local conservative officials, developing conservative think-tanks(American Heritage, Manhattan, Cato and host of others} and making inroads into the press and courts were just a few of his prescriptions.  He was applauded and awarded a seat on the Supreme Court.

The groundwork for the present was begun in 1972 by Lewis Powell but a Field Marshal was a necessity.  There had to be a ruthless, intellectually dishonest and intuitive genius to weld together conspiracy, ersatz populism, racism and class warfare to form a winning effort in the Congress.

 Congress had been a place where, for more than two centuries, people from every direction had come together to compromise to make America keep moving toward the goals of the common good. This new leader had to be vicious, aggressive and untruthful and willing to make or infer any sort of accusation. He had to be willing to sacrifice some Republicans as well as taken on Democrats. Moderate Republicans could no longer exist. There was no place for them because the party didn’t want them.

In 1974 a soldier for this war on Socialism applied for a commission.  He was rejected twice.  In 1978 he was elected to Congress.

And so, the Newt Gingrich era began. Before the advent of Gingrich revolution the Congress was a legislative body  that dealt with an economic depression, fought two world wars, put a man on the Moon, built a national Highway system, created the Human genome project, coped with the AIDS epidemic and created the most powerful Military/industrial complex known to man. Simultaneously we have created the medical industrial complex using 1/6 of the GDP of the country.

Newt immediately began attacking everyone in power.  Vicious unfounded accusations were unleashed. The goal was to destroy the people’s faith in the Congress’s ability to solve problems for the people because they were too old or corrupt. His propaganda machine was very successful. He defeated the Speaker in his own district in Washington state and won the Majority.

After the election of 1994, Newt systematically began to dismantle the functioning Congress.  He was using the template of Lewis Powell’s Memo of 1972 which laid out the way to stem the tide of progressive government.  He destroyed the human infrastructure of the Congress in dozens of ways.

Today’s the Republicans are little more than a collection of power mad people seeking to hold onto their office. Raising money from rich donors and pandering to the worst instincts of the larger constituency is the spectacle we see before us. Recently the 60^th member announce he or she would not return.

The mayhem in our schools is the latest and worst example of the failure of the Congress.  Dozens of children have died since the Sandy Hook massacre occurred. Congress stands and bows its head in the  morning at the beginning of session to commemorate some poor souls whose lives have been destroyed. But really they are afraid the NRA will run someone against them in a primary or a general election. Truly, they are bowing their heads in shame. 

I was there in 1992 when a massacre occurred in California and Pete Stark and others began to push for an assault rifle ban.  It took 2 years to get it passed and the NRA demanded a 10 year sunset clause. In 2005, even with a woman in the Congress who lost her son and husband to the assault rifle madness, we failed to continue the ban.  This is only one example of the internal and external wreckage wrought by Newt.  People who voted for the assault weapon ban  were attacked in the election of 1994.  Tom Foley and Jay Inslee in Washington state voted for it and paid the price at the polls.  They lost but Jesus said, “What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul.? Or what shall he give in exchange for his soul?”

The Congress has lost the ability to do anything.  Name one constructive thing that has happened under Newt and his followers. War on Terror to keep us safe, stopping domestic terrorism, easing the insecurity of millions because of health care fears, Scared school children and parents who worry every morning when the kids go to school.  This the product of the Gingrich Revolution.  Oh, I forgot the 2007 collapse of the financial system, and the burgeoning debt we face as we age into a society without pensions or assurance of health care.

This Congress can act with lightning speed when greed is the driver. Tax cuts, which hobble our ability to do anything creative as a society, are passed at the speed of light.  The whole place has been turned over to 1% of the people(oligarchs) who have no sense of the common good.  No one even raises this issue anymore.  Compromise has been erased from the vocabulary of Congress. Newt takes pride in disrupting the system

William Butler Yeats, who was a member of the Irish Senate, foresaw this and wrote the SECOND COMING:

….the blood-dimmed tides loosed, and everywhere

 the ceremony of innocence is drowned;

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.

The Congress is struggling to regain its role as an institution that relates  and responds to the needs of the Common Good.  Without COMPROMISE it is not possible. Newt broke the spirit of comity and collegiality deliberately so that the whole game would be decided by Republicans. What he delivered was an emasculated legislative body that cannot function. The Duma or the Polish or Hungarian Parliaments are not functioning and are trending back to the authoritarian governments prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall.  They seem like Washington DC.

The prospects were so bright when the Wall fell in 1989. In 1995 the Good Friday Accords were signed in Ireland. Today, with Brexit rumbling along, we are approaching a resurrection of the border between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland.  It took 600 years to take down the wall and 24 years later, they are considering how to bring it back. Nobody will benefit from that, much as no one benefits from a gridlocked Congress.

I have some ideas that may help.    

I’ll write it in a second piece.

The myth of Separation of Church and State

The myth of Separation of Church and State

Now that you have decided to run and have talked to your family and thought about how you will handle the publicity about the dumbest thing you ever did, it is time to talk about your religion.  I don’t care what religion you give, at least lip service to, but rather the religion that  your constituents believe in.  USA has a national religion. Most Americans worship at the Church of the Economy.  The ecclesiastical leader is the Head of the Federal Reserve.  He or she is appointed for 4 years by the President. Thereafter, the Head speaks ex cathedra on interest rates and inflation.

Whenever a problem appears on the horizon the population flocks to their local church(parliament) and lays the problem on the altar of Free Enterprise System. Sermons are spoken by parliamentary members, but the people are reduced to praying to the free enterprise system to solve the problem whether it is job losses or lack of health care or affordable housing or an efficient transport system. In its wisdom, the Free Enterprise System decides if the Economy can fix the problem.

You may scoff at my cynical analysis but consider the fact that only Human beings create religions to explain and solve their Problems. The Westminster Kennel Club does not elect a Saluki to care for all the needs of dogs worldwide.  Even more amazing, no herd of camels or giraffes have even tried to build a Notre Dame Cathedral.

When you decide to become a member of Congress you are immediately accepted as an acolyte into the church of the Economy. You are assigned a windowless cell(cubicle) in the cloister of fundraising. You have a desk with a telephone with an assistant next to you, to facilitate your begging. If you fail in raising money, you will be considered a loser and in fact you will be one.

You may leave to get coffee, snacks or go to the restroom as  you begin the search for salvation(election).  If you don’t raise enough money you will be considered a loser.  You probably will not make it.

During my acolyte years I ran for the legislature and probably raised $2000. (1970) My next race was for Governor and I asked a bishop in the Church of Economy(powerful Lawyer) for a contribution. He said, “When you raise $25,000 come back and I will write you a check.”  I was outraged at the dogma of the Church.  I never raised $25,000 until two  weeks before the Primary.  I got beaten badly, getting 17% of the vote. That was 1972 but I never forgot the lesson. I was just bad at the discipline of begging. I lost 2 Governor’s races after that but raised enough to get elected to the State Senate four times.

Then I quit politics and went back to my profession which I loved. I took a job with the State Department as a regional Mental Health Doctor for 26 countries south of the equator. There was no fundraising involved and I loved to do my work, not worrying about the next election.

But I had a recurring lingering disease called a desire to make change in the world a.k.a. advancing the Common Good.  As a practicing physician, I could see a patient and, hopefully, help with a problem that already existed. But it was hard to see problems that I thought could have been prevented without longing to be back where changes could be made.

 My brother and my campaign manager called me in Zaire and said, ”we’ve got a race you can win.” The devil of the Church of the Economy comes in many forms, including friends who promise help.

I said, “Do an honest poll. Not one where you tell the pollster what you want the result to be. Then raise $30,000 in honest pledges. When you’ve done that, call me back.” They actually did it because I told them I had two kids in college and I wasn’t going to jeopardize their futures on some fly-by night poll.  I knew when I came back, I had to raise enough money for TV ads. I knew I needed about $250,00 -$300,000. I had two opponents who had just finished successful runs for re-election to city council(an African -American) and county assessor(a female).  The question in the district was “Why should we send one more white boy to Congress?”

 Because I was late in entering the race, lots of my friends from 16 years in the legislature had already committed.  I knew what I had to do. Everyday I went to my old monk’s cell at 7:00A.M.  and began cold calls to people in Washington DC.  It was 10:00 A.M. in DC and their first question was, “Why should I get into a contested primary in a district that is likely to go Democratic anyway.” I prayed unceasingly and laid my soul on the altar of the Free Enterprise system.

I got elected by the margins suggested in the poll from 6 months before and went on to get 80+ % in the General election. I hate the system but its very hard to avoid going to the Church and not accepting the Head of the Fed into your heart.

The Question might arise in your mind. Why is it so hard to ask for money for a campaign? For everyone it is a different problem but there are some common themes.

First Commandment of the Free Enterprise System: We all grew up in a society where we were expected to earn what we got. No one should get something for free. We ask for wages with no problem. But what have you done to prove your value as a candidate.

Second Commandment: You must give something in return for your receipt of money. My whole life was working for wages in grocery stores or on the ore boats on the Great Lakes or in the USN. I earned my wages.

The question you have to face is, “What does someone expect who gives you 20$? ”What does someone expect who gives you the Maximum Individual donation of $2500+?” What about a $10,000 payment from a corporation?” What will they expect?” 

Consider that one phone call can get you the equivalent of 5000 $20 contributions.  Saving 4999 phone calls just requires some erosion of freedom of action in, perhaps only, one area. It is a small price to pay for less time in the fundraising cubicle.  If you take $10,000 from a large airplane manufacturer, how vocal and forceful you will be in investigating safety lapses at that company? And what will next year’s response be to your prayer for money from the Church?

Maybe the internet will change the dynamics of fundraising. I won with approximately 200,000 votes in most of 14 election victories. I dreamed of schemes to get $10 from each of them. I could never figure out how to persuade people that $10 matters   It would have netted me $2,000,000 with which I could pay for my campaign AND PAY MY DUES TO THE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS.  I capitalized for a purpose. Newt started dues  in the Republican conference and we copied it on the Democratic side. My dues as a senior ranking member on the Health subcommittee was $250,000.

My fundraising was always hindered by two things: one, how I voted and two, by the fact that I was in a safe district and won by sizable majorities.  In 2000 when Ralph Nader ran, a Green Party candidate ran against me. There were many Greens in my district whom I urged to vote for my opponent, but not Nader in the Presidential race. I could see that Gore couldn’t afford to lose many votes. There were some 20,000 votes for my opponent who was to the left of me poliically.  He attacked me for not speaking out on behalf the struggle of East Timor.  I am progressive but not as wild as some in my district and I always had to keep an eye to the left. Voting that way made some supporters less generous.

But the problem for someone who has been in Congress is how do you tell people that you have to raise money to buy your seat on a committee. In 2014 several members on the Ways and Means committee were perturbed by the fact that I only raised $215,000 of my dues and questioned if I was enough of a team player to keep my ranking membership on the Health subcommittee. I had given all my money except $15,000 I kept to start the new season of begging.

There is a saying in DC, “if you want a friend, get a dog.” I plead my case and was given another term. Consider spending 26 year getting to what you came to do and then potentially losing your seat because you didn’t raise your dues.

But always remember that what goes around comes around. One of my “friends” who raised the question, lost in 2016 and the other had an ethics committee complaint because of her spouse’s business activities. He was indicted for theft of Federal funds. She had been Ethics committee Chair in 2011-2.

The impact of money on politics is constant and there are huge tomes written about how money corrupts. But let me give an example for my readers to contemplate. The issue is hydro fluorocarbon use which was destroying the ozone level.  The discovery was made in 1973 and by 1987 there was a meeting in Montreal where a treaty was signed to phase out its use.  Among the uses of HFC is the role in plays in Asthma inhalers.

I and my mother were asthma sufferers in 1940’s so I personally know the terror of being afraid that your last breath has happened, and you are going to die, gasping for breath.  Many times, I was rushed to the doctor’s office to get an epinephrine shot to break the spasm in my chest.  I saw my mother taken to the hospital in the same state.

Since my childhood, medicine has advanced in the treatment of childhood asthma, often as a result of the use of inhalers that used HFC as a propellant to get the medicine into the affected lung tissue.

The Montreal ban on HFC use, affected drug companies who made inhalers. They were researching a substitute propellant but in 1989 had not completed their tests.  They wanted an exemption so they could continue to search for a replacement.

How that drug company found me I’ll never know. I was new and an M.D. and an active environmentalist. They approached me to offer the amendment and asked me to speak about it. Here was my first Congressional medical chance to make a small change for the common good. I knew the environmental effects long term, but they weren’t asking for permanent exemption, so I agreed.  

Some months later I had a fundraiser in DC and asked various lobbyist to attend. I received a $10,000 contribution from the company I had listened to and helped. I was pleased, needless to say. The question arises HERE: was this a quid pro quo contribution?

Was the contribution because I listened and made up my own mind or did I do it in expectation of later getting some financial help? In my next several campaigns my opponents raised this issue, claiming that I was a doctor in the thrall of Big Pharma.

On almost a yearly basis I got a sizeable check this company.  The only other time I worked with them again was about an amendment to lenghthen  a patent on a drug that took a long time to get through the FDA clearance.  I don’t think I won the vote on that issue but the checks kept coming until they merged with another drug company.

A closer call on quid pro quo is the practice in many offices that send fundraising invitations to lobbyist as soon as the Member’s office commits to a meeting that is important to the lobbyist’ client company. If there is no response, the member may never meet the lobbyist and their client. How long should wait before you put the “touch” on someone who wants you  to do something?  

 Being a believer in the Economy and the free market and miracles have a whole lot in common.

Finally, one last story about the day I led the Pledge of Allegiance in the House at the request of the Speaker  Pro Tem. This a ritual by which each day begins in the House by swearing allegiance to God and Country. I learned the Pledge in elementary school before the Dulles boys scared Eisenhower into believing that Godless Communism was taking over the country and that adding “under God” in the Pledge would do what McCarthy could not do in the Senate.  It would expose communists.

On this morning as I led the Pledge, I did not say, ”Under God.” This failure was noticed on TV by some zealot in a Texas religious bunch that then loosed a storm of Phone calls on my DC office suggesting a number unpleasant things I should do, because I did not believe in God. For 3 days you could not get a phone call into my office.

I was never asked to lead the Pledge again.  If I’m caught in a public setting, now I say, ”Under Gods” in honor of the Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Unitarians and those who just go to the church of the Economy  who serve in Congress.

Follies of New Members

Follies of New Members

Political follies are distributed among politicians universally due to two factors. Either they are new and have never learned the rules of their new role or they are experienced and forget the rules today may not be the ones they learned when they started. The universality of this  phenomenon is on the front page of the newspaper  worldwide every day.

I recently was in Ireland on my way to do a small seminar at Galway at the National University of Ireland.  Since I read any newspaper I can get a hold of, I picked up the Irish Independent and read an intriguing story about folly created by a newcomer to elective politics.

It seems Ms Maria Bailey, a Fine Gael TD(member of Parliament) fell off a swing in a hotel playground outside a restaurant on the 10 July 2015 in the evening. She went to the hospital the next day claiming grievous injuries. Her personal injury claim stated she could no longer sit or stand for long periods without experiencing pain or discomfort. The following morning, she claimed she could not get out of bed.  Since a doctor could not be found to assist her, she struggled down to the emergency ward.

She had a severe headache and was in severe pain with swollen jaw and bite was off line. All of this happened from falling off a swing with “both hands full” at 9:30 the night before. Her personal injury suite claims the “swings were unsupervised” and “there were no signs to instruct patrons”  who hands are full how to use the swing safely.  She was sitting on the swing to have her picture taken by friends.

After the incident occurred, she continued over the few days  to campaign for a seat in the parliament. She won a seat on the Fine Gael ticket 18 days later.  In fact, she ran the Bay 10K in 53 minutes and 56 seconds 5 days after election.

Then Ms Baillie sued the Dean Hotel for 60,000 Euros. The hotel offered 600 Euros for medical expenses. This offer was rejected. The hotel is fighting the case in court.

The question you might ask, ”Why is this story from 4 years ago on the front page of a major Dublin newspaper for a week or more, in advance the European and local Irish elections?”  Ms Baillie’s case comes up at this politically sensitive time because Fine Gael’s platform for re-election is calling for reducing the personal injury claims culture.

She is the daughter of a senior local Fine Gael politician and herself, an elected Fine Gael official and is perfect example of how the system of personal injuries claims are abused. A little paragraph in the article tells why it is a problem for Ms Baillie. 

When Fine Gael was called for a comment on the case, there was no response. However, senior officials were reported as being unhappy with the unwelcome attention before the local Irish and European elections.

This little tale from Ireland is like stories in the papers around the world about politicians who think they are invisible to public scrutiny. You only have to show anger or greed or disrespect or arrogance or stupidity once to begin to get a reputation.  

This Irish tale began 4 years ago and now it bounces up into view. A similar case occurred in Congress. From rural Illinois came a young Congressman who decided to decorate his office like the set of the TV show, Downton Abbey, using his congressional funds to pay for it. He was also using funds from his Congressional allotment to pay for himself and others to travel around the world.  If he had asked one question of the ethics committee, he would never have had the problems that led to his leaving Congress after just 6 years of service.

As I watch my political colleagues, I often think of Robert Burns, the great Scottish poet who wrote: To a Louse, On Seeing One on a Lady’s Bonnet at Church:  Oh, would some Power give us the gift to see Ourselves as others see us!! It would many a blunder free us,

It never is easy to see ourselves, especially in political life, because of the multi-facetted view people bring to observe the politician as he or she walks across the stage. It takes great effort to step on the stage which leaves little energy to be reflective on how the performance is being received. Reading the audience in front of you is a chore in and of itself. You can change your behavior in response to your immediate audience’s reaction. The problem is that what you do or say goes out beyond your immediate purview.  Who knows how it looks or sounds at a distance?  Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat and What’s App have compounded the problem.  Before the telegraph you could say a lot of things in one place and know that no one would know across the country for 6 weeks or more. No politician has any privacy today, PERIOD. If a politician is going to survive and prosper, he or she needs someone around them who will tell them the truth.