An earlier post suggested that an appropriate goal for our political leaders would be a basic agreement on the rules of the game. Each day the news underscores the inability of our decision makers, particularly in Washington, to reach such a fundamental agreement. What are, or should be, the rules? An overly simple outline follows.
There are two basic paths by which a law is created. The first begins in the Executive branch. After consultation with his Cabinet and staff, the Executive proposes a policy which is then transmitted to the Legislature. Under ideal circumstances, each house of the Legislature then prepares its response to that proposal. Those responses almost always differ from the original proposal from the Executive and from one another. The legislative responses are transmitted to a conference committee that, through negotiation and compromise, works out a version which is returned to both houses for final approval. The bill is then returned to the Executive who may either sign it or, if the changes are too great, veto it. That veto is then subject to an override by the Legislature.
The second path begins in the Legislature. A member or members may introduce legislation on their own. If the leadership deems it worthy, that proposal goes through the same committee review as an executive proposals. Those that received approval go to the full house for vote and are then referred to the other house for their reaction. If the other house passes a version of the bill that differs from the original, the conference committee is convened, and differences are ironed out. The final bill is sent to the Executive for signature or veto.
This all is Civics 101. The problem lies in how the participants and the media really see the process through the filter of partisanship or bipartisanship. There appears to be an assumption that bipartisanship means that the Executive should consult with the opposition party and negotiate support for a policy on which both parties can agree. When executive proposals appear to be drafted solely from the prospective of one party, the opposition responds in outrage, and the media pundits bemoan the fate of bipartisanship.
When candidates run for executive offices they have a platform or a series of “promises” that they offer to voters. “If elected, I will…” Of course, they won’t. While some actions may be taken by Executive Order, major policy changes and expenditures will involve legislative action, and, in a few cases, judicial review. What they really mean is “I will try to…” It is unrealistic and inappropriate for us to expect the Executive to negotiate compromises with the opposition ahead of time. His/her attentive supporters expect at least an attempt to keep “promises” in something resembling their original form.
It is in the legislative process that compromises are supposed to take place. It is here that the opposition may have its day. If they agree that some action is necessary, then they may propose alternative language. Appropriations always involve such give and take. Even the majority party rarely agrees fully with the Executive Budget. If the opposition thinks that no alternative language is appropriate, they simply vote, “No.” Bipartisanship can be said to have been achieved when more than a few members of the opposition party vote in favor of the proposed legislation. The use of the filibuster in the U.S. Senate obviously makes bipartisanship more difficult. “A few” immediately translates into “enough to equal sixty total Senators.”
What do the “rules” suggest for an Executive who follows the first path. Original proposals should follow platforms and campaign “promises.” The Executive and their staff immediately begin identifying key legislators to determine potential support for the proposals. Do they favor any action at all? If they do, in what respects would they wish to change the proposal? Once the Executive has demonstrated a willingness to listen, further negotiations need to take place among legislative leadership in an effort to arrive at language supported by a “bipartisan” majority.
For legislation that follows the second path, the burden falls initially on the leadership in the two houses. Each party leader must determine whether the proposal is one that they wish to consider and, if so, in what form. This is particularly true when the legislative control is split between the parties (or effectively so).
In recent years, leaders in Congress have demonstrated little interest in bipartisanship. The recent passage of the Defense Authorization bill and the subsequent override of a Presidential veto is a notable exception. In many instances, legislation that passed the House was simply never considered in the Senate. There was no effort to construct a bipartisan majority. There was no effort even to vote, “No.”
While following the “rules of the game” might result in useful bipartisan public policy, it is routinely trumped by consideration of electoral politics. It is not honest to promote “party first” behavior while loudly proclaiming a devotion to bipartisanship. But why inject honesty into the discussion?