Posted on 01/10/2007 9:37:39 PM PST by oblomov
The most interesting moment on the remarkable and historic first day of the 110th Congress was the eloquent, gracious and insightful speech of House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio). For those who missed it, go back and watch the video. Here are some excerpts:
Resident Scholar Norman J. Ornstein
“Twelve years ago, some of us stood proudly in this chamber as our former colleague, [then-newly minted Minority Leader] Dick Gephardt (D) of Missouri, handed the gavel to the new Republican Speaker, Newt Gingrich of Georgia. . . . There were some great achievements during the 12 years that followed, but there were also some profound disappointments. If there is one lesson that stands out from our party’s time in the majority, it is this: A Congressional majority is simply a means to an end. The value of a majority lies not in the chance to wield great power, but in the chance to use limited power to do great things.
“We refer to the gavel I’m holding as the Speaker’s gavel. But like everything else in this chamber, it really belongs to the people. It’s on loan from the real owners. This is the people’s House. This is the people’s Congress. And most of the people don’t care which party controls it; what they want is a government that is limited, honest, accountable and responsive to their needs. The moment a majority forgets this lesson, it begins writing itself a ticket to minority status. . . .
“Republicans will hold the incoming majority accountable for its promises and its actions. But we also want to work with the incoming majority for the good of the nation we were all elected to serve.
“Fundamentally, democracy is a battle of ideas. The battle of ideas is essential to a healthy nation. But it’s a battle that can take place respectfully. Republicans and Democrats can disagree with each other without being disagreeable to each other. Sometimes what people call partisanship is really a deep disagreement over a means to a shared goal. We should welcome that conversation--encourage it, enjoy it and be nice about it. Madame Speaker, may the best idea win.”
Boehner’s graciousness--and his honesty about his own party’s failings--stood in stark contrast to the behavior of former Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), who sat stonily on his hands through most of the proceedings, including the moments, such as the call for ethics reform, that brought nearly all of his GOP colleagues to their feet to applaud (even if some did so grudgingly, as did some Democrats).
His speech also overshadowed the infantile letter issued by several Republicans calling for enactment of the Minority Bill of Rights proposed by now-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in 2004--a letter signed by some who were in the leadership when it crapped all over the proposal before deep-sixing it.
All that aside, could anybody imagine Denny Hastert giving a speech like Boehner’s? Or former Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas)? Yes, speeches are just words, but this one signals that there is at least a chance for a different demeanor in the House, one under which we can return to healthy--and plenty contentious--partisanship while consigning dysfunctional tribalism to the past.
It underscores the importance of moving as quickly as possible to the regular order--and making the irregular order of “Six in ’06” a thing of the past. I can cut the new majority some slack: They have a right to show the American people that the elections have produced tangible change and to start off as a “do-something” Congress.
But while these are all laudable and understandable goals, it is essential that they become the exception that proves the rule--the rule of inclusion, deliberation and regular order. And that follows the Minority Bill of Rights, because it is the right thing to do.
Boehner’s speech also underscores the need for Pelosi to develop ways to keep and nurture open communications with the minority. The House badly needs to re-establish regular meetings of majority and minority party leaders. The Speaker should not leave it at that. I would encourage an open-door policy for minority Members--opportunities to raise issues and even grievances with the Speaker--and perhaps even a regular session in which she meets with rank-and-file GOP Members.
Every state should institute, or reinstitute, cross-party delegation meetings. Every major committee should consider bipartisan retreats of the sort that former House Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.) used to hold. (New Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel (D) of New York is on the way to reconstituting them.) And committee staffs should get together regularly across party lines.
Of course, these moves will not end up with Democrats and Republicans singing “Kumbaya.” Still, institutionalizing such meetings can help head off misunderstandings, end gratuitous high-handed or sadistic treatment by a committee chairman and maybe even produce dialogue on issues where Democrats and Republicans can find common ground. And they will make it harder for the minority to lob cheap shots at the majority with “gotcha” amendments or outrageous press releases.
It also is time to reconstitute genuine Oxford-style debates, in prime time, on the House and Senate floors. They should be designed less for having every major and minor chairman and ranking member take part and more for creating a free and vigorous flow of information and ideas.
These debates should not just pit Democrats against Republicans. They should range from big-picture issues like the pros and cons of globalization and the paths to take on climate change to more direct debates on such issues as the Iraq War, stem-cell research and the medically uninsured. These debates will not suddenly be covered by the networks or even the cable news channels. But they will begin to establish Congress once again as a real deliberative body and provide outlets for many smart and capable Members of Congress to express ideas and interact in meaningful ways. Over time, they will get attention.
If they are to be effective, all of these things need to get under way very soon. Iraq is the 8 million-pound gorilla that could soon engulf everything, and everyone, on Capitol Hill, making it harder to focus on important domestic issues--and harder to build some bipartisan communication and cooperation. Having a Congress we can be proud of will be a challenge, given the internal dynamics, the history and the external environment. But there is reason for encouragement.
Norman J. Ornstein is a resident scholar at AEI.
Why should I regard "graciousness" and "comity" as worthy ends?
A Repuplican playing nice. AWWWW, ain't that sweet! The Dems will have him for desert.
Why not? It's the way that grown-ups act, isn't it?
>It's the way that grown-ups act, isn't it?
If the differences are a matter of taste, yes. If they are a matter of principle, then escalation should be pursued.
Stand on your principles graciously, courteously. When you are doing what you believe in - you have the luxury of choosing the *means* of delivery. In other words - the means matter. If you are technically right - but otherwise a jerk - you'll probably still lose - because being a jerk is, of itself, not *right*.
That doesn't mean - not to be passionate and fierce in your beliefs - but civil in your public debate. It's good for the whole country, imo.
Boner was the wrong pick, is the wrong pick, will always be the wrong pick. He puts me to mind of Bob Michel, and he was among the worst.
I strive in my personal life for civility.
But the civic culture you describe is an anachronism- it existed for a time because of a confluence of unique economic, demographic, and geopolitical events. The "civil debate" between left and right in the US relied on a united opposition to communism. Now we are on the downslope of the liberal-democratic consensus bellcurve (which peaked in the early 70s). The demographic tide is going out. The socialist dominoes are falling once again in Latin America and Eastern Europe, but this time the vanguards of the so-called fifth and sixth Internationals have no organized opposition in the postbourgeois, postliterate West.
Our democratic institutions have entered their terminal phase. While even FDR hated the idea of welfare, contemporary Americans expect it and demand it, regarding the government as a sort of perpetual motion machine.
Though I would never be a willing participant, I see conflict as inevitable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.