Trending
Regarding the people's business
To the editor:
The oft-quoted but rarely applied aphorism, "government is best which governs least," was on full display last week. For four delicious days, the wheels of the United States Congress ground to a halt as 20 House Republicans insisted on representing the people who sent them there. What a novel idea.
No House Speaker for four days! The sky is falling! How embarrassing! Whereas most of us ordinary folk in the heartland lost little sleep over it, the chattering pundits whined that nothing so terrible had ever before befallen our Republic or stained the sacred halls of Congress, the reputed citadel of democracy.
Talking heads solemnly warned that democracy, yet again, was under siege - a familiar and worn-out refrain. Even establishment Republicans in their cologne, cufflinks, and perfectly coiffed hair bemoaned their party's "delay" in anointing the presumptive Speaker. They called the hold-out Representatives narcissistic terrorists, renegades, disruptors, and insurrectionists. "We must get to the people's business!" they shrieked disingenuously.
The people's business? And what, pray tell, might be the "people's business" in this era of Congressional buffoonery? Continuing to spend the country into oblivion? Passing a trillion-dollar omnibus spending bill so large nobody could read it before voting and earmarking $410 million for border security for Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia, and Oman while refusing to act to secure our own southern border? Allocating $3 million for bee-friendly highways? Ignoring the problem of violent crime in American cities? Sending billions of dollars of our hard-earned taxpayer money to corrupt governments with no accountability or oversight? Writing bills that must be passed first to find out what is in them? Holding sham impeachment trials? Wasting time and money chasing rabbits down Russian collusion rabbit holes? Select committee kangaroo court circus hearings?
The people's business, indeed. The "people's business" should be delayed more often.
Characterizing the selection debate as a "disruption" while duly elected representatives of the people pulled the few levers of influence they possess to force an arrogant, unresponsive, bloated behemoth to pay attention to their concerns is disturbing. This was not anti-democratic disruption. It was full-bore democracy on display -- finally.
We have become so accustomed to decades-long Congressional impotence and inaction that when honest-to-goodness debate over substantive issues such as term limits, omnibus spending bills, and Speaker accountability occur, we fret more about some perceived "disruption" than the redress of legitimate concerns. That is the truly disturbing reality uncovered by 20 incalcitrant members of the House.
That Kevin McCarthy would eventually emerge as the elected Speaker of the House was never doubted and clearly is not the point. The real meaning of the 15 ballots it took to drag him over the finish line was holding his feet to the fire, trying to ensure that he would take the nation's pressing needs more seriously than his own personal ambitions, that the House of Representatives might begin to remedy its cartoonish fecklessness and ineptitude. Interestingly, the House holdouts won the Speaker's agreement to new principles and rules that actually raised few popular objections and appear to resonate soundly with many common-sense citizens across the country.
Perhaps the concessions exacted by the twenty stubborn "renegades" will make some small difference. We shall see. It is certainly a small step in the right direction. The democratic process that produced those concessions was marvelous and messy - exactly as it should be. A minority of House Republicans had every right and responsibility to do exactly what they did. Those who do not appreciate that fact know neither history nor the Constitution.
The Founders designed our system of government to breed and thrive on dissent and conflict - a brave and exciting idea in an age of European monarchies that suppressed speech and representation. The Founders developed a Constitutional form of government that made it exceedingly difficult for any person or group in power to take quick, impulsive, impetuous actions that ran roughshod over the minority. They placed their faith in the slow, gradual disciplines of compromise and consensus building, trusting the American people to create and evaluate ideas forged in the red-hot crucible of vigorous, sustained debate.
The Founders devised an elegant system of "checks and balances," which guarantees constant conflict and disagreement between the three branches of our Federal government. They created a bicameral legislative branch to foment disagreement between the Senate and House. They devised time-consuming structures and processes to prevent the majority from trampling over the rights of the minority. Clearly, the Founders preferred gridlock over authoritarian edict, having experienced quite enough of that from King George.
Contrary to current popular views peddled by a vacuous media, dissent and disagreement are the norm in our Constitutional Republic, not the exception. If some prefer sanitized, no-dissent, shut-up-and-fall-in-line government, there are plenty of totalitarian countries around the globe that can gladly provide it for them.
Since 1789, the House of Representatives has selected its Speaker 128 times. Fifteen of those selections required multiple ballots, including 11, 22, 44, 63, and a whopping 133! Somehow the Republic survived. A fifteen-ballot election is neither unprecedented nor dangerous. So enough of the pearl-clutching drama about this never-before, unheard of "disruption." True democracy is disruptive.
For four glorious days in January 2023, 20 House Republicans stood up and shut down the people's house so the people they represented could be heard. Bravo! Will it happen again? Could it happen again? We can only hope. We can only hope.
Kevin Zook
Lewistown