JONATHAN CHAIT JULY 23, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Charles Krauthammer today waxes indignant at the prospect that Democrats might pass legislation in a post-election session:
The only thing holding the Democrats back would be shame, a Washington commodity in chronically short supply. To pass in a lame-duck session major legislation so unpopular that Democrats had no chance of passing it in regular session -- after major Democratic losses signifying a withdrawal of the mandate implicitly granted in 2008 -- would be an egregious violation of elementary democratic norms.
Perhaps shame will constrain the Democrats. But that is not to be counted on.
Whenever I find myself sympathizing with the party I normally vote for on a process question, I try to imagine how I'd feel were the circumstances exactly reversed. I wish Krauthammer would try this. In his case, he doesn't have to imagine. Here he is speaking on Fox News in December of 2008, when President Bush flexed his lame duck muscles:
Well, this is the most active and important lame duck presidency in American history. Huge interventions in the markets, the signing of an agreement with Iraq of tremendous importance, the status of forces agreement, and now the intervention on the issue of the bailout.
I mean, this is a duck that roared, that people will remember historically.
For all the ridicule that the president has incurred from Barney Frank and others about his lack of leadership, he's leading here. And what he's doing on the auto issue is he's trying to enforce, essentially, a bankruptcy procedure of sorts.
A different tune, wouldn't you say?
As for myself, I'm honestly undecided at the moment. I believe in accountable majoritarianism. But this cuts both ways. Minority Republicans have pursued a scorched-earth policy of filibustering everything, even uncontroversial measures and nominations, in order to both thwart the majority will and to run out the clock on the majority's agenda. These practices violate both democratic norms and the traditional norms of the Senate, though of course Krauthammer raises no objection to that. You might defend a lame duck session as a rectification of that: Democrats would be squeezing in time for bills that were squeezed off the calendar due to counter-majoritarian extreme delay tactics. The counter to that is that this wouldn't justify passing bills that Democrats wouldn't be willing to pass even with unlimited calendar time.
The counter to that is, the new reality is that the rules are the rules and if one party pushes its legal advantage to the limit, the other party can respond in kind. If a lame duck session allows democrats to pass legislation they could have passed with a simply majority before the election, then it's a vindication of democratic norms rather than a violation. I think that's the most persuasive argument to me, but I may revise my view.
10 comments
For heaven's sake, if nothing should be done during a lame duck session then why have one at all? Is Krauthammer stating that Politicians should just collect wages and do nothing? We have such things as planes, if Krauthammer is so worried that a lame duck session might accomplish something, change the system so that there is a far shorter change over period between sessions, like 2 weeks. Otherwise accept the system as it is and expect Congress to do their job when they are in session. The House is elected for 2 full years. Get over it.
- blackton
July 23, 2010 at 10:13am
Didn't a lame-duck GOP Congress impeach a president about 12 years ago? Even after the Dems made significant gains in what could be viewed as a voters' message to lay off the partisan witch hunt? What does the intellectually dishonest Krauthammer think about that?
- W_Bombay
July 23, 2010 at 10:38am
As much as I often disagree with Krauthammer, there's not necc. a contradiction here -- were the Iraq SOFA and the bailout really that unpopular with the Democrats at the time? K. instanced those items defensively, as a way of shoring against the idea that Bush was an especially lame lame duck (which he was, but that's besides the point), not as a way of arguing that Bush should have the right to conduct the presidency without Congressional permission.
- azlant
July 23, 2010 at 10:41am
Woody's right, and it's even worse than that. Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the House "sole Power" to impeach, while Article I, Section 3 gives the Senate "sole Power" to try impeachments and remove officials from office. By impeaching the president during a lame-duck session, the House ensured that several members who had won election to the Senate would exercise both the power of impeachment and the power of removal. That's a clear violation of the obvious original intent of the Constitution's framers; where was Krautwhiner's concern for procedural niceties then?
- rhubarbs
July 23, 2010 at 10:52am
Charlie the K is nothing but a partisan hack any more. His mantra is push for all you can when your side exercises power, and shame on the opposition for trying the same when they are in power.
- liberal reformer
July 23, 2010 at 11:28am
Excellent comment. bombay.
- liberal reformer
July 23, 2010 at 11:28am
Krauthammer is a hypocrite and a shill. And the sky is blue.
- icarusr
July 23, 2010 at 3:10pm
Wow, in glides abusr with his eloquent comment. Whatever would we do without him?
- liberal reformer
July 23, 2010 at 4:34pm
libref, ic said exactly what you said, except with fewer words and less pomposity. Your schoolboy restatement of Chait's thesis wasn't a priceless addition to the commentary here, either. Which is fine! You have every right to blather on like a simpleminded toady. But you cross a line of basic manners when you comment derisively about the worth of other commenters. It reflects a truly ugly element of your character - just like your regular claims about the intellectual "inferiority" of others. Argue against ic's comment if you wish, but merely hurling a personal taunt or posing as the judge comment quality as you have done here is pure assholery.
- rhubarbs
July 23, 2010 at 6:19pm
People who live in simple-minded houses shouldn't throw stones. You jumped on a perfectly fine article a few weeks back and cited it as an exemplar of journalism gone bad. I imagine that Jonathan and Noam and Seyward, et al. enjoy quite a bit of laughter reading your comments. They are often unintentionally hilarious. You are so fatuous that you missed my point yet again. I wasn't objecting to abusr's first sentence. It was his second sentence that I took umbrage at. Charles Krauthammer used to possess a hell of a lot more intellectual honesty than he has these last few years but abusr locates K. as a malign star in the sky of evil conservatism. He is an essentialist, rather like you. When I popped online out here in early 2008, I noticed the groupthink immediately. It is still around, unfortunately.
- liberal reformer
July 23, 2010 at 9:13pm