Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, March 31, 1994 TAG: 9404010015
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A15 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Ray Garland
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
Besides, a legislative body will always be an amalgam of many talents and shifting alliances as it adapts to changing climates of opinion. The "best and brightest" can blunder hugely while the dumbest see things clearly. And history shows public sentiment is no infallible guide to wise policy.
Since voters generally desire the one thing that excludes the other, such as improved government benefits while keeping budgets balanced and taxes low, successful politicians must always engage in tactics of bait and switch.
In that sense, North is as qualified as any number we could name, and more qualified than some. Insofar as anyone can tell, his would be a reliable vote in the conservative camp, which is more than can be said for Sen. Charles Robb; or even, on occasion, Sen. John Warner. But that same claim could be made for North's opponent for the GOP nomination, James Miller.
As a free-market economist of some renown and a former director of both the Federal Trade Commission and the Office of Management and Budget, Miller has demonstrated a clear-cut constancy in serving conservative principles. That said, electability is the one subject to which Republican convention delegates should now devote their days and nights.
If North is the nominee, conservatives would be foolish to allow misgivings over his role in Iran-Contra to stand in the way of supporting him. Our politics are acrimonious, as Whitewater is lately showing, because the stakes for which liberals and conservatives are playing are awesomely high.
With liberalism now controlling most agencies of government and organs of opinion, every vote conservatives can get in the Senate is precious. Remember, a single senator is one of only 51 people required to approve or defeat any measure before Congress. And a switch means a gain of two in the balance of power.
That brings us to the nature of Congress today, and how policy is formulated in an era of well-financed, sophisticated pressure groups, against a backdrop of media saturation. That leads inevitably to the question of the effectiveness of individual legislators - also known as "bringing home the bacon."
In many respects, the operation of Congress and the issues it addresses have become too large and too complex for coherent legislating. Increasingly, Congress has given up on the careful drafting of important bills - being content to state general aims and leaving the details to be worked out later in regulatory agencies or the federal courts. When these decisions don't suit them, they then try to claim credit for fixing what they broke in the first place.
Ideally, a qualified and effective legislator would be someone who carefully reads the bills, researches the subject and offers amendments to improve them. But the rush of business - with lobbyists and staff swarming all over the place and members eager to get home to Oregon - makes that almost impossible.
Debate, particularly in the House, has become a national disgrace: members rushing to the podium to make a few disjointed remarks for the record with no hope of changing any votes. And more and more bills are brought to the floor under rules not only severely limiting debate, but making it extremely difficult to offer amendments.
And few ideas, however good, can prosper that don't harmonize with the public mood of the moment. Take the Americans With Disabilities Act, which conservatives considered opposing - until they soon realized it would be suicidal. In the end, only a few brave souls holding very safe seats ventured to vote against a bill that proponents claimed would offer federal job protection and other benefits to 43 million citizens, including alcoholics, drug addicts, those with infectious diseases and (we recently discovered) the very fat.
This bill no doubt contained some good and needed things, but making employers wary of costly litigation and penalties is likely to destroy far more job opportunities than it creates. Those in favor gave us a very sloppy bill. Those who were doubtful could do little more than nibble around the edges with the help of lobbyists from small business. True legislative effectiveness had very little to do with it.
In today's climate of constantly robbing Peter to pay Paul, no constituency believes it can afford an ineffective representative. But that is generally defined in the most selfish terms. Thus, we saw Illinois Democrat Dan Rostenkowski, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, having the clout with Clinton to get the military to deliver a "free" helicopter to a fire department in his district on the eve of the recent primary.
Rostenkowski, who may soon be indicted, is said to be crucial to passage of Clinton's health plan. If that gets on the books wrong, which is likely, all the free helicopters in the world won't put it right. In sum, effectiveness toward a poor end is ineffectiveness.
Warner and Robb are effective, or reasonably so, because they know how to walk a line between party loyalty and loyalty to their colleagues - and to the institutions of government with which they must work.
Condemn the habits of legislative bodies if you please, but collegiality is generally a rule for success in all endeavors. Miller would have a natural talent for it, as he has amply demonstrated in the discharge of important responsibilities.
No one can honestly say North can't function effectively in Congress. But they can say he would enter that body under something of a cloud, which might be some time dissipating. Nor is showboating a way to get around it. That may tickle the homefolks, but colleagues have ways to make you (and the homefolk) pay a price for it.
Ray L. Garland is a Roanoke Times & World-News columnist.
Keywords:
POLITICS
by CNB