SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Is The Lame Duck Justifiable?

JONATHAN CHAIT DECEMBER 22, 2010

Is The Lame Duck Justifiable?

BY JONATHAN CHAIT

I strongly approve of the ends of the lame duck Congress, but as a small-d democrat, I don't approve of the means. Why should Congress have a period of time to act in which many members enjoy zero accountability before their constituents? The arrangement is ripe for abuse.

On the other hand, the manic productivity of the lame duck session appears to be a response to another anti-democratic mechanism, the filibuster. Mitch McConnell's block-everything, grind-down-the-clock method created a pent-up demand among moderate and even mainstream Republicans who waned to govern. So now they have a few frantic weeks to do a lot of things they wanted to do all along, but refrained out of partisan loyalty.

Meanwhile, despite my reservations about the procedure, I'm taking a lot of satisfaction from the outcome. This bit from President Obama's signing speech of DADT repeal was pretty moving:

I want to speak directly to the gay men and women currently serving in our military.  For a long time your service has demanded a particular kind of sacrifice.  You’ve been asked to carry the added burden of secrecy and isolation.  And all the while, you’ve put your lives on the line for the freedoms and privileges of citizenship that are not fully granted to you.  

You’re not the first to have carried this burden, for while today marks the end of a particular struggle that has lasted almost two decades, this is a moment more than two centuries in the making.

There will never be a full accounting of the heroism demonstrated by gay Americans in service to this country; their service has been obscured in history.  It’s been lost to prejudices that have waned in our own lifetimes.  But at every turn, every crossroads in our past, we know gay Americans fought just as hard, gave just as much to protect this nation and the ideals for which it stands.

There can be little doubt there were gay soldiers who fought for American independence, who consecrated the ground at Gettysburg, who manned the trenches along the Western Front, who stormed the beaches of Iwo Jima.  Their names are etched into the walls of our memorials.  Their headstones dot the grounds at Arlington.

And so, as the first generation to serve openly in our Armed Forces, you will stand for all those who came before you, and you will serve as role models to all who come after.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 12 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

12 comments

I agree that it was a good speech. I disagree that there is a relationship between the quality of legislation to come out of Congress and the accountability of the legislators.

- Nusholtz

December 22, 2010 at 4:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nus, i think the accountability aspect regards trying to get reelected and making decisions based on what will look good or bad for them on the campaign trail. I actually think the quality of legislation goes up a bit, because people can focus on doing what (they think) is right, and not worry about how it will look on the campaign trail after the fact: ie, focus on policy, not politics.

- GSpinks

December 22, 2010 at 5:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It would be better as a practical matter, yes, if there were less opportunity for Congress to convene between an election and the swearing-in of new members. But the Congress elected in 2008 has a term of office, a term set by statute and the Constitution, and that term has not concluded. As a true constitutional conservative, it is impossible for me to object to the lame-duck Congress. More eloquent for me was the president's obvious joy at signing the DADT repeal, and his conclusion to the ceremony: "This is done! [slaps desk]"

- rhubarbs

December 22, 2010 at 5:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Did Jon just write 'a lame duck session is a great time to ditch the filibuster in the senate.'? I thought I read that, but on review, maybe not....but maybe it's in there somewhere...

- jet

December 22, 2010 at 6:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks, Jon, for quoting this part of Obama's speech. I only caught the very tail end of it on the broadcast evening news, and that was moving enough to tear up. I'm amazed that Obama's everyday rhetoric and delivery is so pedestrian and, well, boring to the death. I'd like to have something worthwhile to comment on Obama's role in bringing this legislation to fruition, but I don't know what his role has been with any clarity. Obama's inscrutability is formidable to overcome. Mostly what I hear in the way of commentary are musings and rumors, little evidence to support a coherent case. Someday, after Obama leaves office whenever, I hope Malia and Sasha, if not Michelle, will shed some light on the subject. I'd like to like the guy, but I can't get a handle on him.

- Tgossard

December 22, 2010 at 7:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Doing lots of stuff in the lame-duck falls into the category of things that don't pass the test of philosophical fairness -- call it, phairness -- but that would be monumentally stupid to avoid out of phairness concerns absent the other side's binding agreement to be similarly phair. It's not fair if only one side is phair. Them's the rules. You either change the rules or take full advantage, constrained only by public appearances and other self-interested considerations, because they're gonna.

- JakeH

December 22, 2010 at 7:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ah yes, TG, Obama as inscrutable cipher. Come on, man. Health care reform, DADT repeal, financial reform, food safety, net neutrality, New Start, Iraq withdrawal, not one but two doses of economic stimulus, saving the domestic auto industry (in addition to the domestic financial industry), Ledbetter, and *so on*, all while maintaining political popularity in bad economic times. I get why he gets frustrated with liberals. He's not pulling cute enough rabbits out of hats.

- JakeH

December 22, 2010 at 8:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

JakeH, I wasn't actually criticizing Obama, merely critiquing his persona and everyday dry, humorless rhetoric, sober to a fault. It's really because I do very much like most of what he has supported, lobbied for, and accomplished, and what he represents to liberals like myself—for a politician I could hardly be more content. It's just I wish he could get down a little in public, crack a joke, you know, get all warm and fuzzy, relate, once in a blue moon. I'd like to like him a whole lot, and I suspect I might if I were in his inner circle. As it is, he seems better well defended than the Pentagon. Just a wish, not a demand. You know, wish lists and that kind of thing appropriate to the season. With BO, I can only wish.

- Tgossard

December 22, 2010 at 8:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I hate how snivelly and pouty the left is, too, speaking of humorless. I nearly though not quite totally, hate the left. They're never satisfied, and they're always so holier than thou. Just the perfect note to strike for socialists. ugghh

- Tgossard

December 22, 2010 at 8:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Your eloquent words speak for me, too, barb.

- liberal reformer

December 22, 2010 at 9:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

- "Why should Congress have a period of time to act in which many members enjoy zero accountability before their constituents?" And the POTUS is only accountable to a constituency for one of two terms, legislators who announce their retirement are immune from influence back home and a Senator probably isn't worried what voters think during their first two years because they and regroup over their final four. But on balance, elected officials seem least concerned about voters' opinion compared with raising cash, aligning with or defending against the power of interests and falling in line with Senate or House leadership. Shit, most constituents don't vote! Besides, votes in the House didn't change dramatically because unemployed Democrats weren't accountable and the Senate would have passed their bills without the dead-ender votes. People who are returning bucked leadership (I don't know why?). Some even believe legislators driven more by personal conscience is preferable to reliance on fund raising, surveys, party leverage and the next election. I realize more legislation doesn't mean better government but both chambers were pretty damn lame during the months, when they were accountable to voters.

- michaelg

December 23, 2010 at 10:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The GOP impeached Bill Clinton in a lame-duck session. IMPEACHED the president. Right after the voters sent more Democrats to Congress, in no small part because they were tired of the witch hunt. Compared to that, this December has been very small potatoes when it comes to pondering whether any abuse went on. The bar for "abuse" has been set pretty fucking high. (Or pretty fucking low, depending on how you look at it.)

- W_Bombay

December 23, 2010 at 1:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close