Regime change: Delegation run riot

Sandy Levinson

I'm off to Argentina this afternoon, so I won't be posting for the next two weeks. (No great loss.) But I do want to offer one final comment on the Grand Bargain that was just inflicted on it. Put to one side that it represents, as Joe Nocera aptly argues in today's NYTimes, the submission basically to terrorist threats by a remarkably feckless President. And put to one side that it almost guarantees the worsening of the American (and therefore the world) economy, though it may brighten the prospects of a Republican victory over the feckless President, apparently the only thing that Mitch McConnell is really committed to as he winds up his long and decidedly non-illustrious career in the Senate.

Rather, I want to elaborate the theme of several earlier posts, which is the way that changes in the American political regime occur. From one perspective, of course, the House Republicans behaved no worse than did earlier Republicans, in 1865, who refused to seat the elected Senators and Representatives from the defeated so-called Confederate States, whose governments had been accepted by President Andrew Johnson and whose votes to ratify the Thirteenth Amendment were accepted by Congress. I.e., each band of Republicans took advantage of the legal possibilities open to them and played a decided form of "constitutional hardball." And, of course, full representation of the defeated Southern entities (or whatever you wish to call them) was made contingent on their ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment. If one defends the earlier group of Republicans, as I most certainly do--including the impeachment of the egregious Andrew Johnson--it is on the basis of agreement with their political agenda, which was regime change in the defeated Confederacy. They failed, of course, and the Compromise of 1877 returned the defeated Confederacy to the white ruling class for another 100 years. (Something that should be taken into account by those who are trumpeting the overriding virtue of "compromise" in all cases. There are times when lines should be drawn in the sand.)

So if one wants to denounce the House Republicans today as terrorist thugs, it can only be because on disagrees with their political agenda, as I do. If one shares their agenda, and their sense of concern about the "debt crisis," then they behaved perfectly properly. In any event, one can assume that we will see in the future ever more taking advantage of any and all legal possibilities to get one's way, including the de facto holding America hostage in order to get one's way.

But even more telling with regard to regime change is the further diminution of Conress as a serious law-making or deliberative body. (Nothing new here; Carl Schmitt would certainly understand how and why that has happened.) We are to be effectively governed in the next several months by the new super-duper committee of six Republicans and six Democrats who will be able to propose fast-track budget cuts (or, in theory but not in fact, tax increases) that Congress must vote up or down on, with no possibility for amendment. Lest one compare this to other fast-track procedures, such as the base-closing commissions and the like, note that the failure of Congress to acquiesce to the wishes of their new masters will lead to killing the hostages, in this case automatic budget cuts in defense and in programs involvng the vulnerable.
As I wrote yesterday, this literally makes no sense IF one believes that our current defense budget makes sense (and, of course, if one is a bleeding heart who believes that the suffering should receive help instead of being left to their own prospects in a Darwinian free market). This is not the way a serious Republican Form of Government operates. It is the way a "constitutional dictatorship" takes further (and suitably complext) form. In any event, political terrorism will have been "normalized."

In this context, I'm happy to echo the words of a Texas Republican Representatives, Michael C. Burgess: "I hate it, I hate it, I hate it with a passion.” This comes, suitably enough, from a story in today's Times on how "Lawmakers in Both Parties Fear that New Budget Panel Will Erode Authority." Yes, indeed. It represents a new version of "delegation run riot," though this time the delegation is not to the Executive Branch, but, rather, to an insider's club of less than 5% of the entire Congress, whose members will be appointed by the Speaker, the House Minority leader (Nancy Pelosi), and the Senate majority and minority leaders, with, one presumes, no formal approval by the House or Senate itself. Why would anyone who has any lingering belief in democracy, representative government, or a Republican Form of Government believe this is a good idea?
Posted 11:21 AM by Sandy Levinson [link]