POLITICS, they say, is the art of the possible. That art was censored last week when Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said that bills will not reach the floor if they do not have the backing of a majority of Republican representatives. Besides revealing the farce that is bipartisanship, Hastert's move shows a basic contempt for privileging the public good over selfish interests.
This victory for negligence had a very real and immediate consequence: the failure of the 9/11 Commission-recommended Intelligence Overhaul Bill. As noted in The Washington Post, "In a closed meeting in the Capitol basement, [Hastert] urged his GOP colleagues to back the intelligence bill that had emerged from long House-Senate negotiations and had President Bush's support. When a surprising number refused, Hastert elected to keep it from reaching a vote, even though his aides said it could have passed with a minority of GOP members and strong support from the chamber's 206 Democrats."
Hastert's doctrine is not without a rationale, dangerous as it may be. In a November 2003 speech, Hastert articulated that one of his main principles as speaker was to "please the majority of the majority." He further explained that the job of the Speaker was not to push legislation which was opposed by that majority of the majority. Finally, Hastert said he did not feel "comfortable" scheduling controversial legislation unless his own party could pass it.
In reality, the job of the Speaker is to ensure the efficacy of the House. While it is certainly true that the party in power may enjoy the fruits of their victory, there are times when the public good rises above partisanship. No one expects the Speaker to do anything but exhibit bias towards his party, but if legislation widely recognized as necessary must be passed from across the aisle, so be it. It's called statesmanship.
Statesmanship has a precedent. In 1993, the North American Free Trade Association (NAFTA) bill was passed in a Democratically-controlled House where the majority of Democratic members opposed it. President Clinton supported the legislation and then-Speaker Tom Foley allowed it to come to a vote, where it passed on the backs of Republican representatives. If Foley had taken the same stance as Hastert, he would be just as guilty. This isn't a party-specific critique, it's just a bad policy.
Representatives are notoriously responsive to electoral concerns. Running for re-election every two years out of idiosyncratic districts can easily lead to opposition of a significant bill which has almost unanimous approval otherwise. In these situations, the Speaker needs to consider his constitutional duty -- to serve the public -- and allow a floor vote.
Unfortunately, Hastert's conception of his duty appears to be of a different ilk. His spokesperson explained the decision to block the intelligence bill by saying, in part, "If you pass major bills without the majority of the majority, then you tend not to be a long-term speaker." This is a shining example of the worst type of politics -- the one based on personal interest.
Ultimately, if the House consistently fails to pass obviously needed pieces of legislation, the electorate will flex its muscle at the polls. When that happens, the voters won't care about the "majority of the majority" -- they'll simply perceive the entire system as broken and throw the whole lot out, a la 1994. In this respect, Hastert isn't even serving his own party's interest. Considering the blizzard of criticism that has rained down on House Republicans following the intelligence bill debacle, there seems to be little gain in completely shunning the Democrats.
Social security, Medicare and the deficit will not be solved by the Republicans alone. The issues are too divisive and there are too many Republican representatives opposed to certain solutions. In these cases, Democratic votes will be needed for passage. Under Hastert's new formula, it might not matter -- legislation will likely never reach the floor. This is not governance -- this is thuggery. Censoring the opposition party renders a respectable House impossible.
Elliot Haspel is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. He can be reached at ehaspel@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
WILLIAMS: Big donors are dominating the Board of Visitors
By Ryan Williams | 6 minutes agoSuch appointments being dictated by connections and donations creates a Board composed of big donors instead of members passionate about University goals.
EDITORIAL: Collectives are a misinterpretation of the mission of NIL
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoA large driver of this inequality comes in the form of collectives, the structures many schools use to organize their NIL payments.
CARTER: Data science without sustainability is insufficient
By Nathaniel Carter | 4 days agoThe University appears committed to a future defined by data, but lacks the dedication to meeting this future’s energy needs in a sustainable way.
