From: mss2@quads.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Congress-Bashing and Bush-Bashing
Date: 22 Aug 92 23:01:54 GMT
Reply-To: mss2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Aug22.213320.8536@athena.mit.edu> dks@athena.mit.edu (dks) writes:

>In two recent articles that I found in a.f.d-q, one keithd@versyss.com
>(Keith Doyle) and one mss2@quads.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer) offer
>an interesting point and counterpoint.  Keith lodges a partisan complaint
>about the President.  Michael offers a partisan counter-complaint about
>the Congress, and intends for us to conclude that it is as valid as Keith's
>partisan complaint.  I see what he means, but I reject the suggested
>conclusion.  If you care why, read on.  If you want only to read bad jokes
>about Dannikins, move on or wait for my next post.

>	kd = Keith Doyle
>	#
>	ms = Michael S. Schiffer

>kd > I'm pretty tired of George's whining about Congress.
>#
>ms > I'm pretty tired of the Democrats' whining about the President.

>You're both right: it's all whining.  But there is a difference.

>To whine about "Congress" is vague and meaningless, except as demagoguery.
>There are hundreds of Senators and Representatives, few of whom are
>thoroughly objectionable *to the people who elected them.*  If they were
>all that bad, they wouldn't be there.  For the occupant of, say, a hotel room
>in Houston to whine about the identity or actions of a representative of the
>people of, say, Orange County is condescending at best.  The Honorable Senator
>for the Great State of Blah-Blah is answerable first and foremost not to you
>and me but to the Great People of the Great State of Blah-Blah.

	True enough-- 80% of Americans think well enough of _their_
representative.  But then, railing against Congress is simply an
attempt, however hopeless it's likely to be, to get people to examine
their own representatives.  Yes, they elected them-- but they elected
Bush as well.  Each election is another chance to examine the record
of any officeholder and see if he or she has done a good job.  Bush
has to run on his record-- but each Representative _should_ have to
run on his or her record: what did so-and-so vote on this particular
wasteful program?  Did this one vote to confirm or deny this or that
nominee to the Supreme Court?  Maybe the majority of Americans are
satisfied with their representatives-- but there's nothing wrong, I
think, with raising the issue.  After all, up until a year ago, the
majority of Americans were satisfied with the President.  Then people
started raising particular issues of his record, of the economy, of
his foreign and domestic policies-- and his support slipped
precipitously.

	But there's another side to it.  It's pretty much taken as
given that Bush will not work well with Congress, while Clinton will
work more smoothly.  Which is preferable depends strongly on what one
thinks of Congress-- does it need someone who is more likely to aid it
in achieving the goals which it supports by consensus, or does it need
someone who will stand in its way and ensure that only the programs it
overwhelmingly supports will be enacted.  (Both of those are
exaggerated, of course-- Bush has shown minimal resolve in bucking
Congress, and I doubt Clinton will work quite as smoothly as all that
once the honeymoon is over, but be that as it may...)  Most Americans
like _their_ rep, yes-- but they _don't_ think much of Congress as a
whole (there was a NYT poll a few months ago which demonstrated this,
but unfortunately I don't have the exact numbers.  Certainly well
under half of Americans approved of Congress, while well over half
approved of their own rep.)  It seems perfectly reasonable to run on a
campaign of "Who's going to watch these folks and make sure they don't
get out of hand?"

> [ Michael: if your bi-partisan counter-argument is that Congressional
>   turnover is *generically* too low and that incumbents have so many
>   advantages that their frequent re-election is somehow undemocratic,
>   then tell me why George Bush vetoed a campaign reform bill sent to
>   him by "Congress" and offered nothing in its place.]

	Well, as I said in my postscript, my point was less that the
President was particularly good than that Congress was no better.
While I won't go so far as the Libertarians with their endless
insistance on the term "Demopublican", there are some interests which
incumbents will tend to share, one of which is to ensure their
incumbency.  I don't think that Bush is likely to do much about
campaign reform other than push for term limits (which I think would
be a bad idea-- if people really _want_ to elect the same person to
office twenty times, they should be allowed to)-- but that's neither
here nor there with respect to the fact that, IMHO, Congress has been much
more static than the Presidency, and that as a result it has become
less flexible and more concerned with maintaining and its power and
its privileges.  No, it's not monolithic, but it's a group with common
interests seperate from those of most people.  So long as Congress is
viewed as a career which one can spend one's life in, rather than a
body one goes into to get certain things done and then leaves,
Representatives and Senators will be less responsive to the actual
needs of the public-- whatever they perceive those needs to be.  I
don't think this is a problem which can be solved by legislation, but
I see nothing wrong with calling upon people to "throw the rascals
out," which is the major thrust of Bush's message about them.  (He's
calling for term limits, but even that is just exhortation-- it's a
state matter.)

>But whining about the President is not so meaningless.  There is exactly
>*one* President to whose specific policies (or non-policies) at least half
>the country apparently objects.  Worse, by the vagaries of the electoral
>college -- that invisible trick we play on the individual voter -- an
>impostor can be elected President who may or may not represent the choice
>of the majority of the voting population in the first place.  The
>Presidential election is the only one in which we elect an official
>nationally and in his own right.  To whine about the President, therefore,
>is to acknowledge that we *as a nation* have made an embarrassing mistake
>in our only nation-wide electoral decision.

	This is true.  But as noted, for the President to whine about
Congress is to ask whether it would be wise to dismiss a watchdog (of,
admittedly, doubtful reliability) in order to turn the guarding of the
henhouse over to a fox.

>So, to whine about old George, while not very constructive, is at least
>more constructive than whining about a mythical "Congress."  To equate
>the two whines is disingenuous, at best.

	Well, I disagree that it's disingenuous, though I'll grant
that my direct parallel structure was intended more for effect than
deep thought-- if I'd wanted to say more, I would have had to say it
differently.  Say like this.  :-)

>kd > Get this George, the Congress is SUPPOSED to be at odds with the
>kd > President.  Ever hear about our system of checks and balances?
>kd > If the Republicans can't agree with the Democrats on something,
>kd > it's probably because its a bad idea.  Ever hear about compromise?
>kd > If ya can't convince the other guy that it's a good idea, then
>kd > it probably ain't.
>#
>ms > Get this guys, the President is SUPPOSED to be at odds with the
>ms > Congress.  Ever hear about our system of checks and balances?  If the
>ms > Democrats can't agree with the Republicans on something, it's probably
>ms > because it's a bad idea.  Ever hear about compromise?  If ya can't
>ms > convince the other guy that it's a good idea, then it probably ain't.

>Generally, I agree with both of you, and with Michael's implied point that
>the two failures are equivalent.  However, it is the Congress that makes the
>laws; if a one-term President has issued thirty-one vetoes (and counting), I
>have to ask myself just what this President thinks he is doing.  And when I
>ask myself that question, I cannot avoid the suspicion that this alleged
>President of all the people is blindly defending some failed pseudo-economic
>ideology that only he and a few other millionaires still believe.

	I don't think that it's fair to attribute an economic ideology
to Bush.  To be frank, he's shown no particular economic convictions.
Bush isn't like Reagan, who came in with an economic theory and
attempted to implement it-- rather, his economic beliefs, such as they
are, are a mish-mash of traditional conservatism, combined with his
almost religious preference for the status quo, with the occasional
nod to the eighties supply-siders.  None of which he's particularly
strong on, really-- he did end up compromising all of it, including
his own promises, when he agreed to the budget deal in which he raised
taxes.  Intransigeance is not one of his major sins, I think.  It's
more a matter of working out the priority of his various compromises--
to the various wings of his party, to Congress, and so on.  Bush is,
in the end, a fairly generic politician.

  Moreover,
>if a President's legislative strategy is *so* utterly dependent upon the veto
>power, then I think that President is ignoring or has misunderstood the
>*ideal* nature of our Constitutional checks and balances.

	I suspect that the checks and balances were designed by people
who didn't believe in ideal relationships.  That's why they're there.
Basically, the hope was that Congress and the President would damp
each other's excesses-- which is to presuppose that such excesses
would exist.  If Congress is going beyond its purview regularly, then
the President will have to veto regularly.

>So I concede the equivalence of the two failures to the extent that it takes
>two to tango; but I deny the equivalence to the extent that one of the two
>apparently has no idea that he is *in* a tango, and no idea what a tango *is*.

	Well, I'd say that the Republic is probably safer if the two
branches are playing tug-of-war than if they're dancing a tango (to
overextend a metaphor).

[discussion of school choice, Iran-Contra/Watergate, national health
care, special prosecutors deleted]

>This is absurd.

>Anyone who expects me simply to object to the phrase "national health care"
>is a fool (or thinks I am one).  If "national health care" -- whatever that
>undefined term means -- is unconstitutional, so are Social Security, Medicare,
>and Medicaid.  I refuse to take any politician seriously who objects to 
>"national health care" on constitutional grounds *until* that politician also
>comes out firmly against these other programs on constitutional grounds.

	This sounds a lot like two (or seven) wrongs making a right.
Whether the Federal government has already overextended its power is
irrelevant to whether it should be allowed to do so still further, I
think.  Conversely, wouldn't it be just as fair to say that no
politician has the right to object to Iran-Contra or Watergate unless
it's willing to explore the corruption which existed in, say, the
Kennedy or Johnson White Houses?  I'd say that that's not directly
relevant, myself-- the only immediate question is whether _this_
President has committed a crime.  But similarly, the only question is
whether _this_ program goes beyond the enumerated powers of the
federal government.  The alternative is to say that because we've
allowed Congress to legislate beyond its delegated powers, allowed the
President to legislate at all (via executive agencies), and so on, the
Constitution doesn't limit the government at all, and it has plenary
power over everything.  The Supreme Court and I may disagree on where
the line should be drawn (and, of course, legally their line means
everything, and mine nothing) but the line still exists somewhere, I
hope.  Alternately-- if we allow the President to make laws (pardon
me-- regulations) unconstitutionally, why shouldn't he be allowed to
violate laws as well?  Either there's a legal structure which binds
even our governors, or there isn't.

>As for the office of special prosecutor, first of all I note that it has
>nothing particularly to do with foreign policy.  The statute applies to a
>variety of executive acts, including those that nearly gave us the pathetic
>sado-masochistic spectacle of Richard Nixon hanging by his short and curlies.

	For the last decade, however, it's been used as an instrument
of control over foreign policy, for better or worse.  If Congress
disagrees with the President's handling of an affair, there'll often be an
investigation.  If it doesn't, there won't.  If a DA pulled that sort
of thing, he'd be in trouble for it.

>As for the office of special prosecutor being an intrusion into the
>President's allegedly legitimate "control" over foreign policy, I refer
>you to the Constitution of the United States, which says (in part):
>      
>      The Congress shall have the power

>      To borrow money on the credit of the United States:

	Hmm... well, I assume special prosecutors aren't loan officers.

>      To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the
>      several states, and with the Indian tribes:

	Nor do have they ever been appointed with respect to a trade treaty.

>      To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on
>      the high seas, and offences against the law of nations:

	Hmmm... maybe-- but have special prosecutors ever accused
anyone of piracy, felony on the high seas, or a breach of
international law?

>      To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and
>      make rules concerning captures on land and water:

	Don't really see the relevance, unless the special
prosecutor's commission is a letter of marque.  While I might enjoy
seeing a privateer go after Bush's motorboat, I don't consider this
very likely.  :-)

>      To make rules for the government and regulation of the
>      land and naval forces:

	Those already exist, no?  Special prosecutors aren't involved
in the process of court-martial, though.

>      To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the
>      laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions:

	So is the s.p. a member of the militia?

>      To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia,
>      and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the
>      service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively,
>      the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training
>      the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress:

	If so, apparently he has to be appointed by a state, then.

>      To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying
>      into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested
>      by this constitution in the government of the United States, or
>      in any department or officer thereof.


>I argue that a President's alleged "control" is *at least called into
>question* by each of these clauses.  If you object to the office of
>special prosecutor, I ask you especially to read the last clause carefully.

	Again I ask, which of those powers were being carried into
execution, such that the s.p. is justified under the Constitution?  Or
which other power vested by the constitution in the government of the
United States.  If our government is a government of limited powers
(which was clearly the intent, and seems to be implied by the
structure of the Constitution and the Federalist Papers) then it
should be possible to take any law and point to the power under which
it's justified.  I'll grant that these days this is honored more in
the breach-- but I'll not accept that that's the right way of going
about things, or that the government has legitimately gained any
powers not given it in the Constitution.  If it has, who gave it to
them?  When did we have the vote?

>Moreover, to argue that the current drive in Congress to appoint a special
>prosecutor to investigate Bush's latest foreign adventures derives simply
>from alleged "disagreements on foreign policy" is to ignore statements by
>Bush's own Department of Commerce that documents have been altered and the
>record falsified.  Are you seriously suggesting that the Department of
>Commerce itself simply disagrees with George Bush's foreign policy?

	I don't discount the possibility that there's corruption in
the executive branch.  But if there is, don't we already have a
judicial system to deal with it?  If records have been falsified,
that's presumably illegal.  So, to put it flippantly, why don't they
just call a cop?

>Please don't ask me to debate your point in detail.  I have neither the
>time nor the interest.  If -- after reading the Constitution and considering
>the statements made by people in the Commerce Department -- if you are still
>defending Bush, then so be it.  Go in (Congressionally-declared) peace.

	Well, as you may have noticed, my defense of Bush as President
is pretty weak.  I'll probably end up voting for him, but only as the
lesser evil being presented (and I'll ask that the third-party types
accept the fact that I'm no longer interested in debating whether
there are really only two choices).  But I don't see anything wrong
with his pillorying Congress for the things _it's_ done.

>kd > Congress bashing is nothing but whining because a significant
>kd > majority of this country don't agree with you.  Fortunately,
>kd > this country doesn't give into your kind of tyranny quite so 
>kd > easily.
>|
>ms > President bashing is nothing but whining because a significant
>ms > majority of this country don't agree with you.  Fortunately, this
>ms > country doesn't give into your kind of tyranny quite so easily.

>I have already pointed out the flaw in this statement of equivalence.
>"President-bashing," as you so delicately put it, is almost useless but
>it is markedly more useful than bashing the "Congress" as if it were a
>monolith.

	And I've explained why, for the President particularly, this
may not be true.  The question of working with Congress works both
ways-- if one approves of what Congress has been trying to do, and
wishes it were less restrained, then a President who is better able to
work with it may be a good thing.  If one considers Congress to have
its own dangerous ideas which need to be checked, a divided government
may be prefereable to a united one-- whatever one thinks of one's own
representative.

>Abandoning at the end the pretense of symmetry, Michael goes out
>on a limb and writes the following post-script:
>ms > P.S. Seriously, though, I'm not particularly happy with the
>ms > performance of _either_ branch of government.  But Congress is the one
>ms > which has the lower turnover rate.  Maybe we should try electing
>ms > Clinton to the presidency and a Republican majority to Congress?
>ms > Could be interesting...

>Fine with me.  Elect your Republicans to Congress.  I predict that
>President Clinton, if elected, will work more productively with his
>opposition -- from *both* parties -- than old George has worked or will
>ever work with his.

	"Productively," perhaps-- but productivity is only desirable
if the end-product is.  Whether one wants a factory to be productive
may depend on whether it's turning out cars, pet rocks, or toxic
waste.  To tell the truth, if it were a choice between a Democratic
Congress with George Bush in office, or a Republican Congress with
Bill Clinton in office, I'd be inclined to choose the latter.  (I
might well choose the latter over a straight Republican government--
the Republicans have stances which bother me too, from school prayer
to Buchananesque isolationism.)  But, as you say, I can't vote for
Congress, while I can vote for the President.  Which means I'm
probably going to vote for a watchdog who has already demonstrated his
unreliability, because I think the alternative will be working for the
foxes.


>Clinton/Gore: Government that *works*.

Ah... but works for what?

Mike
-- 
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS	"Workers of the world, forgive me.
mss2@midway.uchicago.edu	 You had more to lose than I thought."
mike.schiffer@um.cc.umich.edu	 -- Karl Marx (1990) as imagined by
mss2@usite-next.uchicago.edu     Jim Koncz (konc@midway.uchicago.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections