REPUBLICAN DEATH WISH - ELECTION 2018

Also published on Newsmax.

Campaign losses are more “suicides” than “homicides”.

The Republicans were poised to beat the odds during the 2018 “Mid-term” election, then everything went wrong. Trump’s last minute targeting of key Senate races recovered some, but not all, of the opportunities for Republican gains. The House was another matter.

History was on the Republicans’ side - Trump’s 2016 victory did not extend to House or Senate races. Democrats gained two Senate seats and six House seats. The absence of “coat tails” meant there was a dearth of “at risk” Congressional Republicans. At the same time, ten Democrat Senate incumbents, who had benefited from Obama’s 2012 trouncing of Romney, were potentially easy targets in states where Trump won handily.

Enter the Lemming Factor. 

It did not take long for media pundits and liberal pollsters to declare that Trump’s behavior and policies would generate a “Blue Wave” overwhelming Republicans in 2018. The prevailing wisdom was that dozens of Republican incumbents in Districts won by Hillary Clinton were going to be decimated. Easily spooked Republicans bought into this analysis. They overlooked the fact that the Republicans who won in 2016 Hillary Districts were the strongest, not the weakest going into 2018. 

Facts did not matter. On November 9, 2017, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, Chair of the House Judiciary Committee and an incumbent who consistently won re-election by over 60%, announced his retirement. Other Republican incumbents soon opted to leave. By early 2018, 26 safe Republicans, who had weathered Hillary’s best effort, had retired, creating potential for Democrat gains. Surprisingly, more than enough for Democrats to retake the House.

Republicans actually began losing the House in February 2017. Speaker Ryan and his leadership team determined their best course of action was to distance themselves from their new Republican President. 

Ryan missed the opportunity to coordinate with the Republican run Executive Branch to open and re-open investigations against Obama, Clinton, and all their minions. This could have included delivering the Comey Report on Hillary Clinton’s email abuses to a Grand Jury and inevitable indictments. Every witness who refused to testify under Obama could be forced to testify. Every document refused under Obama could be released. 

Aggressively exposing Obama/Clinton misdeeds 24/7 would have build the case for Republican government and crippled Democrat candidate recruitment and fundraising for 2018.

Ryan and his committee Chairs blew it, and paid the price. The Democrats caught their breath and rebounded from 2016. Unfortunately, starting in January 2018, House Democrats will show Republicans how total war is waged - 85 subpoenas are already being prepared. 

Trump also contributed to Congressional losses. He laid the ground work for defeat in March 2016 when his inner circle chose to ignore advice and offers for help from Reagan alumni. Trump and his team embraced Washington functionaries from Bush, Romney, and Never Trumper networks to plan and run his Presidential Transition. 

In 1981, the Reagan Transition and early White House relentlessly tracked down and removed every Carter operative and all Democrats who had careered into the bureaucracy. Every possible threat to Reagan’s revolution was marched out the door, stripped of their security clearances. By March 1981, Reagan had a clear path to greatness.

Thanks for bad, possibly malicious, advice Trump left large swaths of Obama/Clinton operatives in place, along with their security clearances and access. In the name of austerity, Trump’s slow, and in many cases nonexistent, insertion of loyalists into key Executive Branch positions left him open to being blindsided, undermined, and outmaneuvered. Chief of Staff, Reince Priebus, filled White House and Agency slots with “RINOgators” from among his Republican National Committee associates. This meant countless opportunities were lost to make Trump’s revolution a lasting operational reality beyond Executive Orders.

Trump’s final error was not declassifying, unredacting, and releasing all documents relating to the bogus Russian collusion probe. Starting months before the election, Nunes and a small band of Congressional Trump loyalists, along with conservative pundits, pleaded for Trump to release these documents. Exposing “sources and methods” was not an issue. The “Deep State” wanted to avoid embarrassment and convinced Trump to do the wrong thing. 

The documents, as characterized by Nunes and others who had actually read them, would have destroyed the Democrats, the Mueller Probe, and the liberal media. A pre-election release would have eviscerated the opposition and possibly saved the House.

The one hope America has is that House Democrats will excel at “jumping the shark” and overreach well beyond the Senate Democrats’ fraudulent attacks on Justice Kavanaugh.

Democrats’ desire for investigation not legislation will not bring down Trump. Pursuing their revenge fantasies will only prove they are not ready to rationally govern. 

November 3, 2020 will be another day of reckoning.

WHY REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT?

“CONSTITUTING AMERICA” SERIES ON CONGRESSIONAL HISTORY

House History – Purpose of the United States House of Representatives as the immediate will of the people and how it differs from the Senate

The reason the U.S. House of Representatives is so different from the U.S. Senate is deeply rooted in the history of representative democracy.

Since the first time hunter gatherers sat around a campfire, leaders depended upon the advice of trusted counselors. These advisors evolved into a lord’s or noble’s Privy Council, and eventually into the “upper chambers” of many democracies, such as Britain’s House of Lords. These members were chosen “from above” – directly by the noble, not “from below” – by the people. In America, the U.S. Senate was based on being chosen “from above” by State Legislatures until April 8, 1913, when the 17^th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution mandated that Senators be directly elected.

The path that led to the U.S. House of Representatives took much longer. Leaders needed centuries, and revolutions, to accept sharing power with those they ruled.

The path to the people choosing their representatives began because Humans are naturally entrepreneurial. It did not take long after the Vikings and other raiders settled down that towns and trade arose throughout Northern Europe. The moment merchants could exchange goods in safety, economic activity burst from out of castle walls and pulled away from the control of the nobility. Anywhere there was a harbor, or roads crossed, commerce occurred and towns grew.

By the 12th Century, towns, like Lübeck in Germany, were growing large enough to have their own governance. They still paid homage and taxes to nobles, but day-to-day commercial activity was now locally controlled by town councils (members known as burghers or burgesses) and by skilled associations and guilds of artisans.

Local governance, except during the religious wars of the 16th and 17th Centuries, was focused on the basics of human existence. This includes water, sewer, garbage, roads, and safety. By focusing on the engineering aspects of daily life, people learned how to work together, sorted out differences, and developed the vital attributes of civilization – tolerance of differences balanced with rules of engagement.

Economic freedom was the other driver for representative democracy. Once people were able to make a living with little or no meddling from the noble, they realized that the noble needed them more than they needed the noble. The noble wanted to maintain his castle and his knights both for protection and power. For this he needed to charge fees or taxes. Once independent towns grew outside of castle walls, or far away from manor lands, people had the freedom and mobility to “vote with their feet”. If a noble is cruel, corrupt, or charges extortionary taxes people would move to the next village.

Economic vitality and localism in England drove a centuries’ long migration from King over the people to people over the King. On June15, 1215, local English nobles forced King John to sign the Magna Carta declaring he could not levy taxes without their consent.

The Magna Carta initiated a tug-of-war between King and subjects. 

By 1341, the Commons began to meet separately from the nobility and clergy (now the House of Lords) in Parliament. Parliament, now with two chambers, expanded its role from validating royal edicts to initiating its own edicts, and ultimately to reviewing and even rejecting the King’s actions.

By 1485, the King was no longer a Member of Parliament. By this time a member of either chamber could present a "bill" to Parliament. Bills supported by the monarch were introduced by Members of the Privy Council, who sat in Parliament. In order for a bill to become law it had to be approved by a majority of both Houses of Parliament before it went to the King for their approval or veto. The basic outlines of western Democracy were forming. 

In the 17th Century, Charles I tried to reverse these arrangements, fought and lost a civil war, and then lost his head. The British Parliament sanctioned dictatorship, then returned to the old ways, before finally establishing the power to remove or anoint kings during the “Glorious Revolution” in November, 1688. In 1701, the “Act of Settlement” codified the preeminence of parliament and began the English constitutional monarchy.

America’s path to the U.S. House of Representatives took a similar course. The Royal Charter that established Jamestown in Virginia evolved from governance by the Charter holders into governance by the King’s Representative (Royal Governor) and his Advisory Council. When the settlers demanded their own voice, the Virginia House of Burgesses, in 1619, became the first democratically elected legislative body in America. 

The House of Burgesses became a proving ground for what would become the U.S. House of Representatives. Drawing upon British tradition, revenue and spending bills originated in the House instead of the “upper chamber”. Drawing from British tradition, the members of the House held their positions for short periods of time in order to be held closely accountable by those they represented.

James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, writing under the pseudonym “PUBLIUS”, outlined the reasons for the unique binding of the House of Representatives to those they served.

As part of their series of essays advocating for the ratification of the U.S. Constitution “PUBLIUS” wrote in Federalist No. 52:

“First. As it is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people, so it is particularly essential that the branch of it under consideration should have an immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people. Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectually secured…. It is a received and well-founded maxim, that where no other circumstances affect the case, the greater the power is, the shorter ought to be its duration.”

Their case for shorter terms of service and frequent elections was detailed on February 19, 1788 in FEDERALIST No. 57

“The House of Representatives is so constituted as to support in the members an habitual recollection of their dependence on the people. Before the sentiments impressed on their minds by the mode of their elevation can be effaced by the exercise of power, they will be compelled to anticipate the moment when their power is to cease, when their exercise of it is to be reviewed, and when they must descend to the level from which they were raised; there forever to remain unless a faithful discharge of their trust shall have established their title to a renewal of it.”

When the U.S. House of Representatives meets, it draws upon this rich and deep history and set of precedents. It remains true to its origins: larger, rowdier, fractious, governed by rules and votes, and highly sensitive and responsive to the popular will and issues of the moment. This is in contrast to the slower pace, decorum, and informal agreements that characterize the Senate.

[Scot Faulkner advises corporations and governments on how to save billions of dollars by achieving dramatic and sustainable cost reductions while improving operational and service excellence. He served as the Chief Administrative Officer of the U.S. House of Representatives. He also served on the White House Staff, and as an Executive Branch Appointee.]

Home Alone

This also appears at http://www.constitutingamerica.org/blog/congress-communication-breakdown-guest-essayist-scot-faulkner/


The world where House and Senate Chambers are packed with Members attentively listening to their colleagues ended long before films like “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” and “Advise and Consent” paid it homage.


The Legislative Branch was intended to be the shining ideal of ordered debate and civil discourse. 


Thomas Jefferson eloquently spoke of this noble mission, “Congress is the great commanding theater of this nation. It is the place where laws are made.” [1]


Originally, the Chambers themselves were designed to foster the exchange of ideas and the forging of national policy through intellectual inquiry. [2]


Today both Houses of the Legislative Branch are pale reflections of these ideals.  Members of the House of Representatives and Senate trade prepackaged partisan barbs to empty chambers. 


“Congress is changing as an institution, and what you see is more and more members gearing their speeches as sound bites or YouTube clips,” said Lee Drutman, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation.  [3]


What happened to the institution where, “members quoted Shakespeare on the floor and really engaged in debate and talked to each other and tried to reason back and forth?” [4]


Blame the size and complexity of the Federal Government.


The conflict between legislative business occurring at center stage versus behind the scenes started in the Continental Congress.  Even during the formative stages of America, there were committees that met away from the Chamber to prepare legislation for consideration.


These committees were temporary in nature.  Ad hoc committees were established within the House and Senate for a particular purpose and ended when they completed their task.  Selecting committee membership was a function of the entire body.  Committee members were usually the sponsors of specific bills and resolutions. These temporary committees were formed with one week deadlines for reporting back to the parent chamber.  Members of the House and Senate actually spent the majority of their time collectively in the “committee of the whole” to conduct legislative business. [5]


The first permanent, or “standing committee”, was the House’s Committee on Ways and Means in 1801. It took until 1816 before the Senate created its first standing committees.  Even with standing committees; committee chairs and members acted as limited adjuncts to the full House and Senate. [6]


The rise of Andrew Jackson and “Jacksonian Democrats” ushered in modern political parties. 


Partisan alignments seeped into the workings of the Legislative Branch.  By 1846 Members began to sit together in the Senate chamber according to party affiliation.  That same year saw the shift to committee assignments based upon recommendations of political party caucuses. [7]


Even with the rise of partisanship and standing committees, legislation was primarily handled by Members conducting learned debate in Chambers packed with colleagues and the public.


Congressional debates mattered and the future of America was being discussed and shaped every day the House and Senate were in session. The leaders of Washington society eagerly attended these sessions. The public filled the Senate’s “Ladies’ Gallery” and even sat on couches along the walls of the Senate Floor. [8]


America was growing and the strategic issue of slavery expanding westward dominated legislative debate. The issues were large and larger than life political leaders rose to voice concerns on behalf of the various regions of the United States.


The years 1810 through 1859, were a period known as the “Golden Age” of the Senate.  During this time three of the greatest senators and orators in American history served there: Henry Clay (Kentucky) articulating the views and concerns of the West, Daniel Webster (Massachusetts) representing the North, and John C. Calhoun (South Carolina) representing the South.


During these years America’s political leaders debated and resolved major issues on the Floors of the House and Senate.  These included the Missouri Compromise of 1820, the nullification debate of 1830 (Haynes-Webster debates), and the Compromise of1850. “Washington's elite gathered to watch the impassioned oratory and the great compromises that took place in this Chamber.” [9]


”On any given day, you’d find most of the senators at their desks in the chamber … writing, listening, debating, laughing, sleeping, franking mail. They were all present. No doubt, this was conducive to debate and resulted in some great discussions and arguments. The crowded Chamber also provided a great show for the visitors in the gallery.” [10]


There was power in oratory. The debates among Clay, Webster, Calhoun, and others mattered. These debates over America’s future became touch stones of our nation’s civic culture. For example, Daniel Webster’s speeches were so famous, “that his reply “Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!” to Senator Robert Hayne in a debate in 1830 was memorized by schoolboys and was on the lips of Northern soldiers as they charged forward in the Civil War.” [11]


The “Golden Age” made the House and Senate Chambers center stage in the Legislative Branch and in the nation. However, other forces were at work to pull power and attention away from this national forum.


Government was growing slowly, but incessantly. By 1856 the complexities of government, and its legislation, required major committees to hire clerical staff. For another fifty years House and Senate Members made do with cramped quarters in the ever expanding Capitol Building. The House of Representatives met in its new chamber on December 16, 1857, and the Senate first met in its new chamber on January 4, 1859. [12] During this time Members attended full sessions of the House and Senate in part because there was no other place for them to work. [13]


This fundamentally changed in the 20th Century. The Russell Senate Office Building opened in 1909.


The Cannon House Office Building opened in 1908. Members began to spend more time in their offices or attending committee meetings. The role of the House and Senate Chambers diminished to a place for voting instead of debating. Eventually, six office buildings would be filled with Members and their staffs.


Another blow to the stature of Chamber debate was the surge in executive branch activism under the Progressives (Roosevelt, Taft, Wilson), Democrats (Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson), and ultimately Presidents of both parties.


Big government forever changed the role of the Legislative Branch. Members had to confront more than legislation. Their offices became “mini-embassies” representing and advising their constituents on navigating the ever growing morass of government programs and agencies.


Members soon realized that power resided in minutiae rather than big issues. By specializing in niche issues and becoming experts on micro-matters they became brokers for legislative processes.


Unblocking choke points meant cutting deals with their colleagues and special interests. Members helping district and special interests to navigate the increasingly complex government labyrinth were rewarded with votes and donations. The road to power and riches ceased to be in front of the scenes, and settled into the dark recesses behind the scenes.


Efforts were made to reverse this undemocratic trend. In 1946, Congress tried to winnow down and streamline the hundreds of committees that blossomed during the New Deal and World War II. [14] Instead, The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 expanded staffs and institutionalized Member focus away from Floor debate. [15]


The number of committee meetings grew as government grew. During the 85th Congress (1957-1958) there were 3,750 House meetings and 2,748 Senate meetings.  By the 95th Congress (1977-1978) it was 7,896 House meetings and 3,960 Senate meetings. [16] Members had to pick and choose which meetings to attend, trading time for their staff, constituents, lobbyists, and donors.  Hearing rooms became just as empty as their parent Chamber.


Social media and fundraising have joined the competition for Members’ over stretched attention.  Lost in this cacophony is Jefferson’s ideal of civil discourse.  The towering figures of the Golden Age are now just names on statues that Members pass on their way to Chambers where they quickly vote and leave.


[Scot Faulkner served as the first Chief Administrative Officer of the U.S. House of Representatives.]


FOOTNOTES
[1] http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/congress/educators/
[2] Richard Chenowerth, “The Most Beautiful Room in the World; Latrobe, Jefferson, and the First Capitol”; The Capitol Dome, Fall 2014; p. 24-39.
[3] http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/22/news/la-pn-study-congress-sounding-increasingly-like-teenagers-20120521
[4] Ibid
[5] http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Committees.htm
[6] “The Committee System.” Boundless Political Science. Boundless, 25 Jan. 2015. https://www.boundless.com/political-science/textbooks/boundless-political-science-textbook/congress-11/organization-of-congress-77/the-committee-system-426-4995/ 
[7] http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/VP_John_Calhoun.htm
[8] http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/VP_Daniel_Tompkins.htm
[9] http://www.clotureclub.com/2012/10/old-senate-chamber-history-and-facts/
[10] Betty K. Koed; “The Ten Most Important Things to Know About the U.S. Senate”; United States Senate Historical Office. http://www.dirksencenter.org/print_expert_tenthingssenate.htm
[11] Craig R. Smith, “Daniel Webster and the Oratory of Civil Religion”; January 30, 2005; University of Missouri Press.
[12] http://www.aoc.gov/history-us-capitol-building
[13] Joanna Hallac; “Old Senate Chamber” https://uschs.wordpress.com/tag/dr-william-thornton/
[14] The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (PL 601 79th Congress); https://bulk.resource.org/gao.gov/79-601/00001E13.pdf
[15] George B. Galloway; “The Operation of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946”; The American Political Science Review, Vol. 45, No. 1, (Mar., 1951), pp. 41-68 American Political Science Association; page 56; http://people.brandeis.edu/~woll/gallowaylegreorgact46.pdf
[16] Norman J. Ornstein, Thomas E. Mann, Michael J. Malbin, Andrew Rugg and Raffaela Wakeman Vital Statistics on Congress Data on the U.S. Congress – A Joint Effort from Brookings and the American Enterprise Institute ; July 2013 http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2013/07/vital-statistics-congress-mann-ornstein

Political Hams & Hotdogs

The following was published in The Washington Times

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/aug/8/political-hams-and-hot-dogs/

The latest polls show Americans' confidence in Congress at an all-time low. Gallup's 14 percent rating is 4 points below the 18 percent that ended the Democratic Party's 40-year hold on Congress in 1994, and 5 points below the 19 percent that drove the GOP from power in 2006.

These indicate starkly that both parties disappoint Americans. This new low transcends specific issues, like the Iraq war. Gallup began tracking confidence in Congress in May 1973. That means Congress weathered the Vietnam War, Watergate, recessions and gas lines while maintaining higher voter confidence. The new low underscores major institutional weaknesses in how Congress conducts itself in the 21st century.

It has long been said that, "No man should see how laws or sausages are made." In my years of performance consulting I have, in fact, seen sausages made. At the world's leading hot dog factories, you see prime cuts of meat being processed in a clean and efficient environment operated by dedicated professionals devoted to quality assurance. I devour hot dogs knowing the integrity of these producers' brands is at stake with every bite.

It is, therefore, dismaying that Congress does not share the same concern about brand integrity as hot dog producers. Instead of a sausage factory, the House projects the image of a huge freshman dorm on a college campus. Everyone is adjusting to living away from home for the first time. Just like college freshmen, they mess around all term and then pull all-nighters to get the minimal work done. Occasionally, they even seek extensions. Look at the end of any congressional session. After many recesses House members will stay in round the clock to complete their work, and then pass a continuing resolution to avoid approving a real budget.

Just like a freshman dorm, the House is a mix: party animals, druggies, slackers, social climbers, jocks, idealists, activists and scholars. During my years as a House staffer and as its chief administrative officer, I encountered nearly half of members and staff displaying some form of addictive behavior including ego, power, greed, sex, drugs and alcohol.

In particular, freshman members and almost all staff can get away with anything, and do. The national media have no interest in the addictions of these small fry. They, therefore, develop an air of invincibility and unaccountability that carries them through their careers. Their lifestyle choices may only catch up with them if they aspire to a major policy position.

This dysfunction was borne out by the dozens of members attending the drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs I managed, and the documents I signed each week relating to legal actions against them. These documents, as many as 50 a week, included bankruptcies, garnishment of wages and court orders relating to not paying alimony and child support.

Recently, the House of Representatives passed its legislative branch appropriations. House members spent an hour discussing the naming of the overblown Capitol Visitor's Center, debating whether culinary school students should practice in the Members' Dining Room and bickering over turf with the House Administration Committee. There was also much posturing over how "green" to make the House's operations.

There was no mention of finding ways to open Congress to the public. Official House Web sites reveal virtually no movement toward new technologies to expand citizen engagement. Where are the podcasts of hearings? Where are the blogs for oversight? It is impossible to e-mail some committee staffs. Many members block e-mails from outside their districts. How is a concerned citizen to gain the attention of a national advocate on their particular issue?

The answer to these questions is the same since the Continental Congress. You can write a letter to a member or work through a lobbyist. I once wrote a member about preserving a Civil War battlefield and got inundated with letters on veterans' benefits.

Members are not listening or paying attention to what is happening. Congress has not learned a thing from the voter rebellions of 1994 and 2006. It is not just time for new blood and third parties but to rethink how we make representative government work in the 21st century.