When talking with people who have no experience or information about the inner workings of Washington D.C. I get the sense that there is a lot of misunderstanding about who is "in charge" of our nation's government. The answer is complex; mostly it is "no one," but also to a lesser degree it is "everyone." I shall attempt to explain.
Since is an article geared toward politics from a Tea Party perspective we will ignore the judicial component and focus on Congress, the president, and outside special interests. The president is often considered the "most powerful man in the world." In reality, the president is much less powerful than many other chief executives in other countries politically. The perception of the president as the world's most powerful man comes from his role as commander in chief of the world's most powerful military force. Even in that role, however, Congress plays an important balance in deciding the scope of any American military action. Let's ignore the military component and focus on politics since that's the purpose of this article.
The president has several tools, both formal and informal, at his disposal to shape the political agenda in Washington. The president is a highly visible figure and the only politician which is elected nationwide. This gives him a unique political mandate and a position from which to communicate to the whole nation in a way that no other single politician can. The president is also typically considered the leader of his party which translates into increased influence in Congress if his party holds the majority there as well. When Congress acts to support the president, in essence adding its authority to his own, the president is at the peak of his political power. We most recently saw a president and Congress acting in harmony during the first two years of President Obama's presidency. The president's party had a large majority in the House of Representatives and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. These majorities were large enough that the president was able to pass his signature health care law without a single vote from the opposing Republican party. Since Congress cannot typically deliver such large majorities, President Obama was an uncommonly powerful president during the early years of his first term in office. After Republicans gained control over the House of Representatives the president's political power has declined and he has been unable to pass any other signature pieces of legislation.
Additionally, the modern regulatory state has given modern presidents more power than early presidents possessed. Starting in the early 20th century Congress began erecting large new bureaucracies to regulate society, especially the economy. These agencies were delegated legislative powers from Congress which are today referred to as rule making authority. These agencies are a part of the executive branch and accountable to the president. This means that modern presidents have significant tools to change the law without Congressional input by regulating under authority that Congress has already granted to the executive. These regulatory powers are most useful to the president when his political party does not control all of Congress and cannot be relied on to deliver favorable legislation through the normal legislative process.
The president also has several checks on his power, both formal and informal. We'll explore these limitations as we talk about other centers of power in Washington D.C.
Next let's look at the Speaker of the House. Today's speakers are much less powerful than even other recent modern speakers and much less powerful than earlier speakers. The power of the Speaker of the House probably peaked in the first decade of the 20th century under Republican Joe Cannon, who was simultaneously the Chairman of the Rules Committee and who had the power to appoint all other committee chairmen. This meant that Speaker Cannon controlled all aspects of the legislative process in the House, including what amendments could be offered to bills and what bills would be voted on. While modern speakers no longer had sole authority to appoint chairmen or direct control over the Rules Committee, they were still very powerful. Modern speakers had the ability to exert great influence over chairmen positions and to dispense earmarks, or grants of money for special projects in legislation, along with other lesser powers. Today's speaker retains only the ability to influence the appointment of chairmen due to the House ban on earmarks. As a result, the speaker cannot deploy many tools to keep discipline in the caucus he leads.
For example, the speaker may usually control what legislation comes to the floor of the House for a vote. However, if a majority of members sign a discharge petition they can bring a piece of legislation to the floor of the House for a vote without the legislation being approved by a committee or the speaker.
The speaker may reassign unruly members from desirable committees to less influential committees. However, most members view reassignment from choice committees to be inconvenient at best and may not be dissuaded from engaging in the conduct that leadership seeks to discourage. The speaker cannot reassign very many members, nor can he use this particular tool very often, because he relies on a strong majority of his conference to maintain his own position as speaker.
The speaker may also try to punish members by using his influence over the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) to deny unruly members access to campaign funding assistance. Again, members that are personally wealthy or who have access to a strong fund raising base which is loyal to them personally will not find this tool particularly threatening.
As a result, today's speaker is not particularly powerful and lacks any reliable means of keeping his conference in order. This has made the modern speaker more of a consensus builder and negotiator rather than a strong leader that issues commands. In order to get anything accomplished the speaker must try to get different factions within his conference to work together to accomplish the party's goals.
The Senate Majority Leader is somewhat stronger than the Speaker of the House because the majority leader has more power over what legislation is considered by the whole Senate and because the Senate's procedural rules give the majority leader more tools to influence legislation (what amendments are offered, etc). Of course, Senate rules also empower individual senators to a much greater degree than individual Members of the House of Representatives. An individual senator can do far more to disrupt and shape the legislative agenda in the Senate, including many informal rules (for example, it has been tradition that if a senator from a judicial nominee's home state objects to the judicial nominee, that nominee will not proceed to confirmation).
The dynamic between the president, Congressional leadership, the bureaucracy, and individual Members of Congress is further complicated by a plethora of special interests, including lobbyists who contribute significant sums of money to political activities. It isn't strictly accurate to say that lobbyists purchase votes in Congress or favorable regulation from the president. However, lobbyists (I will use lobbyists as a short hand for all special interests, including issue advocates, not just economic special interests) do use their money to gain access to the legislative process where the decisions on many critical issues are made. Lobbyists have access to other resources beyond money, such as information. They use this information to present a case to legislators to persuade them to pass laws or regulations which are favorable to the lobbyists. Lobbyists will boil down complicated issues into easy concepts for legislators to understand, especially on complicated or obscure issues where individual Members of Congress are unlikely to be subject matter experts. By controlling the information that legislators receive lobbyists are able to exert immense influence on how legislation is crafted. Indeed, lobbyists may create first drafts of legislation to help legislators begin the process of making a new law or rule on an issue. This process also occurs in the bureaucracy, but with an added layer of lobbyist influence because many bureaucrats were either former members of the industry they regulate or anticipate leaving the bureaucracy to join the industry they regulate.
While this is a corrupting process, this is not necessarily a criticism of individual legislators or bureaucrats. These individuals want to do a good job for the American people, but they lack the information they need to make rules on so many different industries and activities. No person can be an expert on banking, car manufacturing, health care, endangered species, monetary policy, airline travel, deep sea fishing, and the thousands of other activities the government regulates. Of course, this is why the Tea Party, and others like us, advocate for less government intervention in every part of society. Central planning will always lack critical information, which makes the central planners (legislators) ripe for capture by industry backed subject matter experts giving them information designed to help established interests.
So who is in control of Washington? No one, really, and everyone. The Congress still reacts to the will of the people, but it also reacts to whoever is shouting loudest at any given moment, including many vested special interests. Questions? Comments? Leave them in the comment section below.
No comments:
Post a Comment