The Right is Wrong and So's The Left, Congressional Chaos Edition: Conclusion

 

“Any jackass can kick a barn down, but it takes a carpenter to build one.”

Sam Rayburn

 

Sam Rayburn served in Congress for more nearly half a century, representing Texas’ fourth district for 48 years.  He holds the record for the longest tenure as Speaker of the House, serving 17 years over three separate stints,: from September of 1940 to January of 1947, 1949 to 1953 and finally from 1955 until his death in November of 1961. He was such an institution in Democratic politics that he eventually earned the nickname Mr. Democrat.

His career is that of a man who believed in the institution of Congress. In 1921 he was elected Chairman of the Democratic Caucus at the age of 39. In 1931, he became Chairman of the House Interstate Committee and was vital for much of the legislation that was vital to FDR’s New Deal. He became majority leader in 1937 and when Dan Bankhead died in the fall of 1940, ascended to the position of Speakership. He would lead the Democratic caucus for the rest of his life.  After the disastrous midterms of 1946, he thought he should step down  but the Democrats felt he was so vital between the Northern and Southern factions of their party, the man he endorsed and President Truman drafted him to take the job back. In his final tenure  as Speaker, he helped Lyndon Johnson, a protégé of his in the House become Senate Majority leader. Working with Eisenhower and Johnson, he helped passed such landmark legislation as the acts that established the Interstate Highway System, NASA and both the 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts. He also helped get Alaska and Hawaii admitted into the Union.

Rayburn spent his entire career building bridges not merely between factions of his own party but with Republicans. During his tenure, he was the founder of ‘The Board of Education’ in which he would drink bourbon and smoke with members of the leadership of both parties in order to get pressing business before the House through Congress. When Harry Truman was Vice President, he would join them to drink. It was Rayburn’s style to work behind the scenes rather than share the spotlight, something that was appreciated both by fellow Congressmen and the administrations he worked with.

Near the end of his life Rayburn was asked how many Presidents he had served under. An indignant Rayburn responded: “I never served under any President. I served with eight.” This response shows a man of fierce independence who believed the legislative branch must operate in concert with the executive. But by saying ‘serve with’ Rayburn was making it clear that both he and the Presidency – and his term in Congress included as many Republicans as Democrats – were both elected for the same purpose: to serve. The public, the National interest and the government.

I have spoken little of the Democratic leadership during this era of Republican chaos because it was remarkably consistent: Richard Gephardt served as minority leader from 1995 until 2004 when he retired from Congress. Nancy Pelosi took the job of minority leader and became Speaker in 2006 when the Democrats regained power.  She has served eight years as Speaker, in two tenures of four years apiece.  In both Gephardt and Pelosi’s leadership, they chose to spend their tenure regarding Republicans as the opposition not the enemy. Gephardt argued that Livingston should not be forced to resign in 1999 and spent the remainder of his tenure working with both Dennis Hastert and George W. Bush. When Pelosi announced she was stepping down as Speaker, in her speak she remarked how proud she had been to pass landmark legislation under Joe Biden, Barack Obama – and George W. Bush. (I realize she omitted Trump, but you can’t exactly blame her for that.)

There has been considerable argument, not without justification, that the rise of Donald Trump has given so many on the right and the Republican party to  saying the quiet parts of their agendas and bigotry and to treat all institutions with disdain. From my perspective, I think that his rise has done the exact same for many on the left.  I’ve note with a certain irony how much extremists on both sides have in common: they have no use for institutions of any kind, they believe in eliminating anyone who voices dissent to their views, they cherry pick facts and history for it to fit their narratives; they each believe that the only way America can be saved is if the opposition has no voice in it.  And while the left was always sounding alarm bells throughout the Trump administration, even after Biden took office they became, if anything, more intolerant of government even though they had power.

I read so many articles on this very site and others like them that argued the reason that the Biden agenda was not getting through Congress had nothing to do with the flaws in the institutions or the Republican opposition but because of people like Nancy Pelosi.  In their eyes she was subverting the Democratic agenda because she was part of ‘the corrupt system’ that kept ‘people like her in power’.  They would constantly raise comparisons of FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society – men, who I should mention they would throw under the bus when it suited them – and argue that Biden and leadership could easily do the same. They conveniently ignored that in both cases the Democrats had huge majorities in both houses of Congress and that both Presidents had won in massive electoral landslides the year before.  The reason Biden and Pelosi could not do the same thing FDR and LBJ did was ‘they just didn’t want too.” They used this to further their own arguments that both parties were evil, that democracy was overrated and the world was doomed.

Time and again I would use Rayburn’s quote in these comments to both refer to their attitudes and their decisions not to offer alternatives.  These versions were the most extreme, but over this same period I was being similarly deluged by more ‘legitimate’ leftist newsletters making much the same argument. The only real difference was that, because they were attached to Democratic fundraisers, they at least believed one party would save America.

Throughout the voting out of McCarthy and the three weeks of chaos that followed, you could sense the glee within the progressive community. No matter which Republican was floated, whether it was Steve Scalise or Tom Emmer, they were considered part and parcel of the same noxious package. To them, there is no such thing as a good Republican. They had to pause when Cliff Johnson became Speaker because they didn’t know who he was, but it took them less than two hours to argue he was the worst possible choice. That each time the Republicans floated an option that was the worst possible choice for the country is a contradiction they never saw; you expect that from an organization that mocks Trump becoming Speaker and advocates for Liz Cheney for the exact same reason.

It is fundamentally alarming that during all the chaos that unfolded during the last three weeks that every major media source had no problem letting the Democrats off the hook for helping essentially enable eight Republicans to remove Kevin McCarthy from the speakership.  I grant you the Republicans are hardly deserving or worthy of our admiration during this period – they have more than demonstrated they have no ability to lead and no agenda when they have power.  But none of this comes as a shock to anyone who has followed the Republican battles in the House the past decade. But the ones involving Gingrich and John Boehner were internecine battles in which the Democrats were no more than observers.  In McCarthy’s execution, they not only actively participated in the end of his leadership but took no responsibility for in the aftermath. They looked at the chaos that unfolded over the last three weeks and saw only an opportunity for the year to come and possibly those to follow.  The Republicans have spent much of the last year acting like children, but the Democrats in the House did nothing to behave like grownups.

This is why I fundamentally doubt why so many Democrats and historians yearn for the days of ‘civility’ in Congress.  I have little doubt many of them do remember the days both parties got along with no conflict with fondness. But the Democrats engage in subjective memory. The reason for this ‘civility’ was because during much of the 20^th Century, in both Houses of Congress, the Democrats had such numbers that Republican’s grievances and conflicts were irrelevant.  Bipartisanship was nice -  and indeed necessary for much of the legislation that got passed -  but it’s worth remembering that, just as often, it wasn’t strictly necessary. When you outnumber the Republicans by margins of 2-1, as was frequently the case for much of the 20^th century, then the Democrats no doubt considered them friends in the sense they considered them ‘harmless’. There may have been many Republicans in the House over the years who felt the same way towards Democrats as Newt Gingrich did, but they did not have the means to do anything or the patience to play the long game as he did.

And the sad part the left seems to think that kind of civility is what America needs. I have read enough articles over the last year that view Republicans as fundamentally irredeemable and unworthy of a voice in our society. They view so many of today’s elections not as much as a chance to get Democrats into government, but to get Republicans out. I honestly think that’s the reason so many of the left is still with the Democratic Party: it’s not about love of one, it’s about utter contempt and bigotry for the other.  I can’t tell you how many articles I’ve read by columnists saying that the only message of the GOP is to arrange for a government that fundamentally surpassed the rights of a majority of its citizens. I’ve also seen quite a few articles that basically argue the only way to save America is to eliminate so many of the institutions that give the minority its power – the electoral college, give more seats in Congress to bigger states, grant statehood to new states that would be Democratic. These arguments claim to be for more representation and they are – but beneath is the idea that we have to outnumber the bad people in America in order to save it from them.

When the Times issues on Republicans moves towards election interference, some are angry because they refused to call them evil dictators in print. Sure if they did, they would be subject to lawsuits from right wingers and the left would give them no credit because they’re just saying what they think is obvious to everybody – i.e. them.  They will use missives to waive off right-wingers call their heroes on the left unamerican and in the same article get angry because the world won’t call the right wing unamerican.

 

 Where does it end? When the majority of Americans don’t have to listen to the minority anymore? When the minority have so little representation in elected office that we don’t even have to campaign against them? When we can put all of the citizens of red states into one place and put a wall up around it? The left laughs at the idea of a national divorce, but only because they wish it was that easy.

Even now, among some on the left they continue to bicker among themselves among purity. They’re angry when Republicans won’t join Democrats when they make a motion to expel George Santos from the House. When New York Republicans made that same motion earlier this week, they got no credit, saying they were only doing it for political reasons – as if Democrats were doing it purely out of concern for the morals of the House and not for a chance to erode the Republican majority. (Look forward to an article in the future about how Santos got there in the first place.

There might be solutions to these problems but they are long term and difficult. And part of me truly thinks that neither side wants them. The idea of compromise and half a loaf – ideas beloved by men like Rayburn and LBJ – are considered toxic among both sides. The left, in recent years, has made it clear than half a loaf, even ninety percent of it, is unacceptable. The best deal you can get is still bad because it’s not perfect.  Anyone who wins elected office is compromised because they are part of the system – I saw one columnist consider Pramila Jaypal a sellout because she agreed to vote for a compromise on an infrastructure bill rather than make a stand and make sure no one got anything. Many of them will trumpet the end of democracy and sound aggrieved at the idea of having to vote.

The idea of an elected official serving with a President is a myth these days. Too many on both sides don’t believe that they should run for office to serve their country, their party or even the people who vote for them. The only people they want to serve are themselves. Matt Gaetz made that very clear involving Kevin McCarthy. So did Democrats like Maxwell Frost.

A motto that Silicon Valley made famous was ‘Move Fast and Break Things.’ Despite the fact that both sides utterly deride everything Silicon Valley stands for, too many people in Congress have taken that motto as their principal in government. To paraphrase Sam Rayburn, many elected officials are only interested in being jackasses and think carpentry is a skill that they don’t need to bother to learn.