In spite of its somewhat Communistic sound, John Boehner is fond of describing the branch of Congress he heads as "the People's House." Given the way in which he has "led" it, it's entirely fair to wonder which "People" he is referring to. And that has never been truer than during the past week, when he and his party barely got a border-crisis bill across the legislative finish line, and then quickly got out of town, hoping that everyone would see that they passed a bill, and that no one would see the bill go nowhere.
In this instance, the "people" don't include either President Obama, or any members of the Senate from either party, neither of whom were asked by Boehner's "People" to work with them toward a consensus bill. Nor do they include the the "people" who staff our immigration system, nor the residents of border states who are directly affected by the crisis. Worst of all, the "people" definitely do not include the thousands of Central American children who are looking for a safe haven from the violence our foreign policy has generated in their home countries, wherever they can find it (including the U.S., where many of them have relatives as lawful residents). In fact, the "people" don't even include a large portion of Boehner's own Republican caucus, many of who are tired of having their lives run by the Tea Party.
Ah, the Tea Party. Now we've identified the "people" that Boehner really cares about. Because they control his ability to enjoy the perks of the position he has worked so hard to otherwise make meaningless. The Tea Party is a minority of the House, of the whole Congress, and of the American people. But, thanks to Boehner's preference for perks over principles, the Tea Party is acting as a "rump" government, demanding a government that isn't possible and sentencing the majority of Americans--Democrats and Republicans--to suffer from not having the government they need.
And yet, as partisan a Democrat as I am, I have to wonder if things would be much better, or even different, if and when control of the House changes hands. It would be easy enough to imagine how the tables might be turned, with one or more factions of House Democrats creating a level of chaos not much different or better than the current mess. And, while redistricting reform might help solve the problem through the creation of less partisan districts--as I've argued elsewhere--it may not be enough to counter the increased factionalism in a nation that has never suffered from a lack it.
What's the solution? I think it's time to have the Speaker of the "People's House" elected by the people--directly. In fact, I would argue for a system that has elections for Speaker conducted in the off-years between Presidential elections, along with the other Congressional races. That way, there would be a real incentive for everyone to participate in every election and, hopefully, an end to the midterm slump in voter participation. Each party would nominate a candidate, who would be on the ballot in every state. The person elected would be directly responsible to the voters to ensure that the House of Representatives worked on their behalf, producing legislation rather than gridlock, working across the aisle to produce consensus rather than conflict. I've written before that the Speakership is already a Constitutional office. Amending the Constitution to allow direct national election to the office would help to ensure that our system worked the way the Constitution was intended to make it work.
It's not easy, of course, to amend the Constitution. But it's beyond painful and pathetic to simply put up with the abuse of our system of government that Boehner and the Tea Party have conspired to create. Something has to be done, if we're going to be able to heed Benjamin Franklin's advice to "keep" our Republic.
No comments:
Post a Comment