Was I dreaming? I sat down on the couch next to Moxie tonight and turned on CNN. And there was a panel of pundits pondering the motion to recommit. After weeks of discussion about reconciliation, the Byrd Rule, self-executing rules, and the Senate parliamentarian, it was not a dream.
There will be much more to say about tonight’s historic votes on health care reform once the dust is settled from this evening’s votes. In the meantime, I thought I’d raise some questions for Monkey Cage readers about parties and health care, and the limits of leaders’ powers:
1. I was struck by Obama’s reference this weekend to the ideological nature of the health care bill. “This is a middle of the road bill to help the American people…” And later, “It’ll turn out that this piece of historic legislation is built on the private insurance system we have now and runs straight down the center of American political thought.”
Assuming this was more than rhetorical flourish, why in an era of oversized majorities were Democratic leaders constrained to pass a bill that hewed so closely to the center? Is this solely the effect of the Senate’s Rule 22 that requires the consent of a supermajority to end debate and thus to pass a bill? What does the centrist nature of the bill imply about party-oriented theories of legislative organization?
2. There will be a spate of articles in the coming days ranking Speaker Pelosi as one of the strongest speakers of all time. How much should we attribute the success of health care reform to the Speaker? If so, on what basis?
3. Does it matter that health care reform was enacted solely with Democratic votes? Can we say something about the durability of major reforms based on the partisanship of the enacting coalition?
4. Will the member of the House Rules Committee who voted with Republicans against the rule in committee be stripped of his membership on the Rules Committee? (I doubt it!)
But enough with the House (for now). Onward to Senate vote-a-ramas!
{ 4 comments }
Obama seems to have every incentive to market the bill as centrist even if it is not, so we cannot take his word at face value.
I’m not sure how we could objectively measure if the bill is centrist.
Are the Democrats that voted against the bill right of the American political center? I have no idea. However, if they are not then that fact suggests the bill was not right down the center.
I’m note sure how you’d know Pelosi’s influence either. Sure, we can observe her major policy passage but we can’t observe all the compromises and forgone opportunities. Powerful could also mean the ability to make progress on many smaller issues or navigating national politics well enough to ensure your party’s control for an extended period, allowing greater total achievement of your agenda.
I’m not sure party theories of legislative organization can explain this debate. This Congress is hardly defined by party dominance. It has all the characteristics of a dominant congressional party: huge majorities in both chambers, a massive legislative mandate, and while it isn’t congressional it doesn’t hurt to have a president with communication skills unparalleled since JFK (Then again, perhaps it is fitting Obama is suffering some legislative difficulties in his first couple of years. Is it possible to be too eloquent?). This Congress has all the party trappings without the fingerprint of legislative efficiency or ideological cohesion. If the political leadership in Congress is so powerful, why is a 77-seat majority reduced to passing bills by 4 and 5 votes?
Certainly Speaker Pelosi played an important role in all of this; however, this debate in particular serves as a reminder that political parties serve their members and not the other way around. At a bare minimum, the Stupak agreement is evidence of this. Considered more aggressively, this agreement nearly refutes absolute party dominance on its own. The party was forced to cave on an issue diametrically opposed to its ideological commitment in the name of a “majority” to pass its
Pundits love to herald the leadership’s vision and influence. What makes their case comical is they’ll do so for the wrong reasons. Pelosi did a good job guiding this legislation (more so in the closing days of debate). However, she did so by wrangling a majority from a very diverse membership. Not by twisting the arms of a largely obedient party.
It looks to me that the Speaker did exactly what party-dominant theories expect. She got a bill that is consistent with a key policy objective on which the Democratic Party’s collective reputation is based, while providing “cover” for individual members of her caucus for whom this would be a difficult vote.
I don’t see the clash between “party dominance” and the “centrism” of the bill. If your party is not an ideological party, then party dominance of the legislative process will not produce a policy with a clear ideological bent.
In catching up on my Monkey-Caging, I see that Jim Shoch anticipated my argument about the Speaker’s role on this bill about two and a half weeks ago (with an APSR citation, no less).
Comments on this entry are closed.