A conservative defense of Congress

7

A conservative defense of Congress

MICKEY EDWARDS

T ASSIGNMENT was simple: would I please attempt to write a conservative defense of Congress? I can almost hear the laughter. Rut this was to be an entire issue of The Public Interest devoted to a single topic—an examination of the United States Congress—and there had to be some balance, after all. Surely, I could think of something….

This is not supposed to be a philosophical piece, but permit me first the briefest of words about what I perceive the issue to be and why I do, in fact, believe the Congress to be the single most impor- tant element in the American political system.

The one essential ingredient of the conservative theory of gov- ernment—the very essence of our political philosophy—is that tlf greatest threat to man’s liberty is the accrual of power by those \ who govern him. If man is to preserve his freedom, then the 1 power of government must be hmited both in scope and reach. / Government power is best circumscribed when it is diffused. T h g / intellectuals who estabhshed this unique American system of gov- ernment—men who incorporated both the advances of European

81

82 THE PUBLIC INTEREST

liberalism and the harsh lessons that they had drawn from their own experiences with centralized and unchecked power—held as their central goal the creation of a framework in which power would be divided among competing forces. The branches were meant to hold each other in check; it is supposed to be difficult to change the laws that so directly affect peoples’ lives.

Just as the Founding Fathers agreed to set aside their doubts and to incorporate into the Constitution a provision for a presidential veto because they had confidence in George Washington, it is easy for Republicans today to take comfort in the presence of “our” peo- ple in the White House. But we need to forget for a moment, or at least to place in historical context, the nine years of Reagan and Bush and remember that just since World War II we have had twenty years of Democratic presidencies. The fact is, the laws and taxes and regulations that so bedevil us exist not because there was too little cooperation between the branches but because there was too much.

It was not by chance that the Framers of the Constitution placed the power of the purse, the establishment of domestic priori- ties, the approval of treaties, the regulation of commerce, the declaration of war, the confirmation of judges, even the authority to hmit the jurisdiction of the courts, in the hands of the people’s elected representatives, nor that the establishment of the Congress and the enumeration of its assigned powers is the first decision announced in the Constitution: article one, section one, line one, sentence one, phrase one, point one, I

This, by the way, is not lost on the rest of the world. WheiKpeoX pie take to the streets to demand their freedoms, when they face tanks and machine guns, when they look to America as a model of liberty, it is not the presidency that inspires them. The world has no shortage of strong executives; what it lacks are chambers of ̂ people’s representatives who are freely chosen and who exercise real power. Executive power was born in the caves of prehistory; legislative power, born in the Magna Carta and the French Assem- bly, is the heart and soul of the modern liberal tradition (which today’s “conservatives” are left to defend, while misnamed “lib- erals” defend the centralized power of the cave).

From all over Europe, newly free citizens flock to Washington to look at the White House and to study Congress, One prominent conservative member of Congress has told of seeing visiting Soviet deputies with tears in their eyes as they sat in the chair of the

A CONSERVATIVE DEFENSE OF CONCRESS 83

Speaker in a chamber in which the people hold the real power. As Lech Walesa said in a powerful address to Congress last year, the Congress “for many people in the world, oppressed and stripped of their rights, is a beacon of freedom and a bulwark of human rights.” It is, in fact, the Congress, not the presidency, that symbol- izes America’s commitment to government “of the people, by the people.”

Maintaining the conservative legacy

I will not, and cannot, defend many of the current (and changeable) practices of the current (and temporary) leadership of the current (and replaceable) Congress. But the liberal control of the Congress is largely the fault of conservatives—we often field second-rate candidates and insist on talking about things that the voters in Dubuque and Peoria don’t really care about, like the gold standard and corruption in Newark. It would be far better to work a little harder (and smarter) at winning elections than to surrender our conservative legacy by jumping on the bandwagon of central- ized, “efficient” governmental power.

The Congress is changeable. Although a large percentage of in- cumbents who seek reelection are successful, that has always been the case in American politics; more than 80 percent were being re- elected a hundred years ago, too. But there is not, as some people charge, a permanent Congress. Approximately two-thirds of the people who were serving in the Congress a dozen years ago have been replaced; almost all committee chairmanships have turned over at least once, and often twice, in the past ten years. In many state delegations there is not a single member of Congress who was in office when I was first elected fourteen years ago. The Congress is, in fact, a constantly changing body, with a much higher rate of turnover than is found in business, academia, or most significant institutions.

Yet there are increasingly those in the conservative community who, frustrated, apparently find it easier to curse the darkness of the current congressional leadership than to light the candles of in- telligent political involvement that are available in a free society. I have written frequently about the dangers inherent in the cam- paign for a line-item presidential veto, a substantial power that many Republicans support in a bold gamble that no Republican nominee for president will ever lose to some future Michael Duka- kis or Walter Mondale. I have had it pointed out to me in rebuttal.

84 THE PUBLIC INTEREST

as though it were a telling point, that even such prominent liberals as Senator Edward Kennedy and Senator Paul Simon support the line-item veto. To this argument I can only shrug and reply: “Of course; but we already knew that they believe in centralized power.”

It is helpful, sometimes, to attempt to see ourselves through the lens of historical perspective. What a tragedy it would be if we, the heirs to the single most important pohtical innovation of modern times—the separation of powers, in combination with a careful system of checks and balances—were to surrender that great legacy, almost without debate, in a fit of frustration.

Congress as an institution

Let us not confuse two very different things. The current management of the Congress is faulty; many of the current practices and procedures in the Congress are terrible; the current Congress is inefficient, unresponsive, and undemocratic. But the Congress as an institution is the very center of the democratic experiment—and potentially the most important defender of con- servative values.

This raises three questions: 1. Can the Congress be fixed? 2. Is the doctrine of separated powers suitable to this fast-

moving modern age? 3. Is the Congress still important to conservatives as a check

on executive power? The answers are: yes, yes, yes. In response to the first question. Republicans can regain control

of Congress by simply learning again how to win elections. There are no shortcuts in politics. Recruit better candidates, identify the concerns of the voters in each congressional district, apply conser- vative solutions to real problems of real people, stop writing off large blocs of voters—that’s how elections are won. I’ve written ex- tensively on each of these points and I won’t attempt to do so again here, but Democratic control of the Congress is not due to evil forces or the juxtaposition of the moon and the stars. We can change it. Those who would lead us in a frantic search for tran- scendent national issues that will serve as magic arrows to slay the liberal dragon ignore the fundamental lessons of local politics. It is far better to relearn the art of winning elections than to transform our political system, centralizing power even as the people of East-

A CONSERVATIVE DEFENSE OF CONGRESS 85

em Europe undertake to hreak up the centers of power in their own governments.

Many of the current problems with Congress would be resolved if the President and others of influence were to add their voices to the campaign for serious congressional reform—demanding the right of the people to have issues debated and voted upon, without restrictive rules of debate (structured by the majority) that block consideration of many proposed amendments; prohibiting the bundling of unrelated spending bills into massive appropriations that defy presidential vetoes; eliminating the power of committee chairmen to announce other members’ votes by proxy; extending to the Senate the House’s prohibition on unrelated “riders” to legis- lation, I have introduced a package of such reforms on behalf of the House Republican leadership, and they should remain on the table as a part of any future budget negotiations.

As for the second question, few domestic issues require re- sponses more urgent than Congress is able to provide. Federal agencies charged with dealing with emergencies, whether torna- does or bank failures, have adequate ability to respond rapidly. The greater problem arises in the international arena. But even though the Constitution divides between the president and the Congress the major responsibilities in foreign affairs, and reserves to the Congress the power to declare war, the War Powers Act delegates to the president the authority to move rapidly and unilaterally in the event of an international emergency, subject to later review by the Congress,

Defending congressional prerogatives

This leads, finally, to the question of whether the restraining power of the Congress—the check against the authority of the ex- ecutive—is, in fact, important to conservatives, V^hile it is tempt- ing to remind one’s readers of such matters as the conservative role in the adoption of the 22nd Amendment, which hmits presi- dential succession; in the promotion of the Bricker Amendment, which would have limited presidential use of executive agreements; and in the congressional resistance to Franklin Roosevelt’s effort to pack the Supreme Court with supporters of his New Deal, it is not necessary to resort to these examples from what the modern mind undoubtedly considers to be “ancient history,” A few more recent examples may also make the point.

In my first term as a member of Congress—which coincided

86 THE PUBLIC INTEREST

with the beginning of the Carter presidency—I found myself deeply enmeshed in a nationwide struggle by conservative activists to block the implementation of the treaties by means of which the new President proposed to surrender control of the Panama Canal to Omar Torrijos and his most powerful ally, Manuel Noriega. Civen the current conservative tendency to argue that foreign pol- icy is properly the domain of the chief executive, and that the Congress ought to keep its micromanaging nose out of the way, it might be supposed that we held to that same principle during the controversy surrounding the Panama Canal treaties. In fact, the opposite was true: Congress was the last hope of conservatives opposed to the actions of the President. On behalf of conservatives in Congress, I filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the Pres- ident’s right to surrender federal property without the consent of the House of Representatives. The decision by an appellate court to dismiss the suit on the grounds that individual members of Con- gress lacked sufficient standing does not dilute the central point: in an attempt to block an action by a liberal president—in a matter of foreign policy, no less—conservatives turned to the Congress and the courts.

It is helpful to continue with examples from the Carter presi- dency, since many who now disparage the Congress and would in- vest new powers in the presidency seem reluctant to remember how recently a liberal president sat in the White House.

In 1977 President Carter proposed to stimulate the economy by providing a $50 rebate to each family. It was the Congress that killed the plan: when liberals barely defeated a motion by Repre- sentative Rarber Conable to substitute instead a tax cut, the rebate scheme was dropped.

In 1978 President Carter attempted to create a new Consumer Protection Agency. It was killed by conservatives in the Congress.

In 1978 the Carter administration announced that it would ter- minate the Mutual Defense Treaty that the United States had maintained with the Republic of China on Taiwan. Conservatives turned to the Congress to ensure continued U.S. protection of Tai- wan. The result, in March 1979, was a decision to continue the U.S.-Taiwan relationship unofficially, with continued security guar- antees.

In 1979 President Carter proposed a Hospital Cost Containment Rill that would have greatly increased federal regulation of medical care. The plan was killed by conservatives in the Congress.

A CONSERVATIVE DEFENSE OF CONCRESS 87

In 1979 the Carter administration proposed a cumbersome emergency rationing plan. Customers would need coupons tq buy gas, and gas stations would have to redeem the coupons to purchase more gasoline. The initial cost was projected to be $346 million. Annual administrative costs were estimated at more than $1.6 billion. Conservatives killed the plan in Congress.

In 1980 President Carter proposed a gift of $75 miUion to the new Sandinista government in Nicaragua. The Congress nearly defeated the aid package and forced Carter to accept sharp restric- tions on the use of the money.

In 1980 conservatives used the Congress to defeat President Carter’s proposal to create a new Energy Mobihzation Roard that would have had the authority to waive state and local laws.

Even when Carter won, it was often over the stiff opposition of conservatives who turned to the Congress to resist presidential power. Carter’s narrow victory in imposing a windfall-profits tax on the domestic oil industry is one example. Another is the attempt by congressional conservatives to prohibit the World Rank from lending money to governments in Cuba, Laos, Mozambique, Cam- bodia, Angola, Uganda and Vietnam. Ultimately, the resistance to this plan in Congress forced Carter to accept a compromise that required U.S. representatives to various international lending institutions to “oppose and vote against” loans to the seven coun- tries.

Such battles do not occur only when Democrats occupy the White House. Last year, during the Rush presidency, conservatives in Congress repealed catastrophic-illness health-care legislation and section 89 of the tax code (a provision that would have imposed burdensome regulations on small businesses), despite both provi- sions having been signed into law by a Republican president (Reagan), and despite the Rush administration’s support for them. The current year began with conservatives rallying to use the Con- gress in an attempt to keep Chinese students from having to return to the control of the government that had used its guns in Tiananmen Square.

Retaining a historical perspective

Despite the persistent (and false) contentions that the Congress is a place of permanent residence, 106 of the 176 Republicans in the House—and most of the conservative Democrats, as well— have served for nine years or fewer. Very few served during a

88 THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Democratic presidency, and it is easy to understand how they could think of the world only in terms of the relatively brief Beagan- Bush period in the White House, It is important, however, to retain a historical perspective. Trite as the expression now seems, it is nonetheless true that if we fail to remember the past, we are pretty likely to repeat it,

I am, as my young son likes to remind me, two years past half a century. Age has its virtues, among them memory, perspective, and context. For more than half of my life. Democrats have held the White House, For more than half of my life, conservatives have had to turn to the Congress in an attempt to prevent liberal presidents from expanding the size, scope, cost, and power of the federal government, I spent my own early years in Congress work- ing with conservatives throughout the country to oppose presiden- tial initiatives in both foreign policy and domestic policy, begin- ning, in my first year in the Congress, with a concerted campaign to block the Panama Canal treaties. Before we undertake to deni- grate the Congress, it would be helpful to look back at recent his- tory. When it comes to the establishment or defense of political institutions, memory is important.

Defend the Congress? The Congress of the United States needs no defense: it is the focal point of the Founders’ determination to put the people in charge of their own destinies. Like my colleagues in the conservative community, I am frustrated by continued lib- eral domination of the Congress and by the authoritarian means that the majority uses to stifle debate and to ignore the public will. But there was a reason why wits of earlier ages cautioned us not to toss out the babies when we dump the bath water. Let us reform the Congress, but let us hold it dear as the guardian of our liberties against the centralization of power.