A Book Review: The Parties Versus the People

Mickey Edwards was a Republican member of the House of Representatives from Oklahoma from 1977-1993.  After losing in a primary, principally because of his involvement in the House banking scandal, Edwards journeyed to Cambridge, MA, where he taught at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government and Harvard Law School.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickey_Edwards  (Our paths did not cross.)

I have no memory of him from his days in Congress.  But he (apparently) saw and learned enough to pen an outstanding book:  The Parties Versus the People:  How to Turn Republicans and Democrats into Americans.  The overall theme of the book is that our political parties are private political clubs and that their influence should be minimized.

According to Edwards, Congress used to pass, even controversial, legislation with strong bipartisan support.  Among examples he provided are:

• The national highway system was created in 1956 by a vote of 388-19 in the House of Representatives and by a vote of 89-1 in the Senate. Our current POTUS has an infrastructure plan, perhaps it will garner the same support.  (Surely I jest.)
• In 1965, Medicare was created by a majority of both parties in house. Senate Republicans were split.  But a considerable number of them supported the new legislation.  That almost never happens now.
• The National Environmental Policy Act was enacted in 1969 by a vote of 372-15 in the House of Representatives. Unbelievably, the vote in the Senate was unanimous.

Then (again, according to Edwards) came the Robert Bork hearings, which were highly and bitterly partisan.  After that, party line votes became more routine, exacerbated by Newt Gingrich’s decision to change “the legislative focus from policy development to nonstop hyperpartisan politics.”  p. 31.

Edwards provided many other examples of how partisan our national legislators have become.  He attributes much of it to the party system, particularly the fact that we have essentially only two parties.  He prescribed several steps to minimize the influence of the parties.  I consider that a worthy and wholly quixotic goal.

Probably the most important step in the right direction would be to have open primaries.  Currently the parties control who gets on the ballot; they would continue to exert considerable influence under an open primary system, but it would not be paramount.  Under this plan, the top two vote getters in a primary would advance to the general election.  This would likely lessen the tendency of liberal candidates to lean hard left and of conservative candidates to lean hard right during primaries

In the general election, both candidates would have to broaden their appeal to garner a majority.  According to Edwards, “We must break the power of partisans to keep candidates off the general-election ballot by creating a new system of open integrated primaries.”  p. 48.

He proposes the creation of independent, nonpartisan redistricting commissions.  The evils of gerrymandering are widely known and just as widely ignored by whichever party happens to control the districting process.  Edwards stated that “The democratic ideal is to allow voters to select candidates, but partisan redistricting can produce the opposite result, allowing candidates to select their voters.”  p. 65.  Though it wasn’t a result of gerrymandering, I can’t help but think of Hillary Clinton deciding to live in New York.  Though she had no ties to the state,[1] it was safely Democratic.

Edwards next proposed ways to reduce spending and to increase competition.  The first is likely unconstitutional, but it sure would be helpful in reducing the influence of outside money.  Edwards suggested that a candidate only be allowed to accept contributions from people who live in the candidate’s district. p. 80.  Edwards also suggests that we allow all candidates a certain amount of free air time, though not newspaper advertising.  He would also allow non-incumbents limited free mailing to minimize the incumbent’s franking privilege advantage.

Now comes a suggestion right out of an idealist’s handbook:  establish nonpartisan congressional leadership.  Edwards believes that partisanship has led to a party first, country second attitude.  But – if the speaker’s role[2] was filled by someone outside of Congress, that person could oversee a “completely nonpartisan division of committees, guaranteeing a nonpartisan process for considering legislation on the House floor, and serving as a mediator to push the competing parties toward common ground and effective problem-solving.”  That would be refreshing.

Given that it won’t happen, Edwards recommends better ways to vote for a speaker.  Edwards suggests that at least one third of the signatures on a nomination must come from members of a different party.[3]  Another option is to require that the speaker receive 60% of the votes cast, which almost guarantees a healthy dose of bipartisanship.  Details would have to be worked out, but the originality and creativity of the suggestions is first-rate.

Edwards also believes that Congressional committees are too partisan.  He states that “in theory, the committees exist to deliberate about the best solutions to major national problems; in reality, they exist to advance the partisan agenda of a temporary majority—or, for members of the minority, to block that agenda.” p.104.  Edwards recommends that the Chair of a committee should be from the majority party and the Vice-chair from the minority party and that each should have the authority to bring bills forward and invite experts to testify.

Edwards would turn the rules committee into a true bipartisan traffic cop, by among other things, ensuring that any bill with 100 cosponsors would be brought to a vote.  Other simple logistical measures would enhance collegiality by eliminating the trappings of partisanship.  For instance, seating members by seniority, rather than by party, would bring members from opposing parties into regular contact.  So would eliminating separate lecterns, cloak rooms, etc.  The idea is to congregate leaders, not separate them.

 These changes, and others that I have not mentioned, would not significantly alter the way Congress operates, just the way partisanship interferes with the way it operates.  None of the suggestions Edwards makes would favor either current major party.  They also wouldn’t help minor parties.  But they would be good for the country because our leadership would almost necessarily be less strident and extreme.

[1] She grew up in Illinois and spent most of her adult life in Arkansas or Washington, D.C.

[2] Though not the constitutional speaker, who is third in line to the presidency.

[3]  Here and throughout, I have skipped much of the material presented by Edwards.  I can’t simply repeat the book.  And I hope you will read it, so I can’t give away all of the good stuff.