Gary Andres is Vice Chairman of Public Policy and Research at Dutko Worldwide and a weekly columnist for the Weekly Standard.
Americans often cite President Obama’s failure to change the culture of Washington as one of reasons for his low job approval.
No doubt his liberal instincts along with pressure from Democrats in Congress – who found the prospects of being in charge of unified party government for the first time in over a decade too tempting -- certainly contributed to continued partisanship and Obama’s colossal underachievement.
But part of the explanation also comes down to experience.
Obama also failed to transform Washington because he did not understand this city. One term in the U.S. Senate left gaping gaps on his learning curve – breaches that created a combination of backlash and disappointment among voters.
Incoming Speaker John Boehner won’t single handedly change Washington either. No one person can.
Yet Boehner could make an impact because he grasps something few others do. While Washington bickers about a lot of things, much of the fighting these days is about process, not policy. The presumptive Speaker knows that.
Elected to Congress in 1990, Boehner has lived through two decades of increased partisan polarization in Washington. As a result, he has insights into how to channel some of the heat out of its hot engine.
Increased partisanship manifests itself in many ways – not all of which are bad. One of its most positive implications is that voters now have a much better understanding of the fundamental differences between the parties. Democrats are the more liberal, big government party, while Republicans represent conservative, smaller government views.
Thirty or forty years ago, you could find Democrats more conservative than some Republicans and some Republicans more liberal than some Democrats. No more.
Political scientist Mathew Levendusky notes that elite polarization has also impacted rank-in-file voters. In his book, The Partisan Sort, Levendusky writes, “…elite polarization has fundamentally transformed voters. … [it] has caused voters to adopt the ideological outlook of their same-party elites. I refer to this alignment of partisanship and ideology as sorting; sorted Democrats are liberals, and sorted Republicans are conservatives.”
Boehner has witnessed the implications of this more sorted electorate on Congress over the past twenty years. And here’s one of the biggest: because lawmakers feel less cross-pressure between the demands of their constituents and their party leaders, they can allocate more procedural power to their leadership. Rank-in-file members then rely on their leaders to use procedures to protect them from tough votes and produce partisan “wins.”
“Closed rules” in the House means allowing no amendments to legislation. So the biggest fights are now often over the procedure, not the policy. The minority often has to try to defeat a bill by voting against the rule or a “motion to recommit” the legislation. Again, this means the fights are over parliamentary procedure, not the substance of policy.
Boehner noted in a speech given at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research: “This Congress is the first in our history that has not allowed one bill to be considered under an open amendment process -- not one. The current freshman class has served an entire term in Congress without ever having operated under an open rule.”
Political Scientist Sean M. Theriault also identified this trend recently in his book Party Polarization in Congress. He finds that little of the increase in partisan polarization is due to fights on amendments or final passage votes. “In less partisan days,” Theriault writes, “all members agreed that all members could amend all parts of a bill…Today members vigorously fight about which members can amend which parts of the bill.”
Few people understand that constant bickering over procedure produces a lot of the rancor in Washington. To voters outside the process, it makes the institution look petty and dysfunctional. For the minority (formerly the Republicans in the House and next year the Democrats), it is frustrating and demoralizing, leading the losing side to often lash out in rhetorical exasperation. This further erodes the cultural climate.
As Speaker, Boehner hasn’t promised fewer policy disputes, but he does plan a more open and fair process. Giving the minority more of a chance to offer its alternatives won’t reduce ideological differences, but it will mean the minority won’t feel aggrieved or silenced by heavy-handed rules.
Boehner understands that his idea of procedural Glasnost means he won’t win every vote. That’s ok. Sometime over the last decade – under both Republican and Democratic majorities – the norm of “never losing” became too important.
This doesn’t mean that he’ll back down on principle or compromise with liberals on issues that betray conservative values. But it does mean he won’t create a “heads I win, tails you lose” procedural trick on literally every floor vote.
Letting the House “work its will” could do more to change the culture of Washington than dozens of speeches by the president. John Boehner understands that. President Obama could learn from the presumptive Speaker’s insights and experience. More procedural openness in Congress – thanks to the new Republicans House majority -- might help achieve the change the president could only promise.
Has anyone missed the rather obvious point that Conservative Home UK support the Conservative Party, whose coalition with the 'Liberal Democrats' [clue in the title folks..] have policies broadly congruent with the Obama administration.
The hard-right in the Conservative Party, like Norman Tebbit and John Redwood are a million light-years from the levers of power.
David Cameron got to be the Top Dog because he embraced the 'centre-ground' of progressive politics, just like Barack Obama.
There is a lesson there somewhere for the GOP, but it escapes me for the moment, and it will escape them for decades while they stray and wander in the wilderness...
Posted by: Bedd Gelert | 11/15/2010 at 02:16 PM