Several years ago, I read a book that President John F. Kennedy wrote (and actually won the 1957 Pulitzer Prize) when he was the U.S. Senator from Massachusetts (several sources now question how much of the book that Kennedy actually wrote, but that is a topic for another day!) called Profiles in Courage. The book was actually a series of 8 short essays on U.S. Senators throughout history that demonstrated courage and integrity while serving in the Senate - as an example, one of the stories is about Thomas Hart Benton, a Senator from the state of Missouri whose "act of courage" involved opposing his own party by speaking out against the extension of slavery to newly formed territories. It is actually a pretty good book and short enough that it can be easily read in a single afternoon.
I don't expect that anyone will try to write a sequel to Kennedy's book any time soon. At least in my opinion, there are few "profiles in courage" or examples of leadership (at least the kind that I would like to emulate) in today's Senate. I would point to the current debate on whether to use the "nuclear option" for the appointment of Supreme Court Justices as a good example of poor leadership.
Former Senator Harry Reid, who was the Majority Leader the last time the Democrats held the majority in the Senate, exercised the so-called "nuclear option" in November, 2013. Basically, the "nuclear option" as used in this particular context is a rarely used parliamentary rules change that allows the U.S. Senate to override a rule or (usually) long-standing precedent by a simple majority (51 votes) instead of the required "super majority" (or "filibuster proof") of 60 votes. Essentially, once the "nuclear option" is exercised, the Senate can decide on a particular issue by majority vote. The rules are fairly complex (and not necessarily explicitly prescribed in the U.S. Constitution), but in order to end a debate (i.e. end a filibuster), a motion for cloture must be approved by a three-fifths majority (3/5 * 100 Senators = 60 votes). If the necessary 60 votes are not obtained, theoretically the debate could go on and on forever (Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky once held the Senate floor for more than 13 hours during a filibuster in 2013). A minority group of 40 Senators could therefore prevent passage of a bill or approval of a Presidential appointment.
Of interest, Senator Reid had argued against Senator Bill Frist exercising the "nuclear option" during the Bush Administration in 2005, again related to several judicial nominees opposed by the minority Democrats. Reid argued then, "The filibuster is the last check we have against the abuse of power in Washington...the Republicans are in power today, Democrats tomorrow. A simple majority...should not be able to come here and change willy-nilly a rule of the Senate." Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed this time around when the so-called "Gang of 14" Senators (7 Democrats, 7 Republicans) agreed to oppose the "nuclear option" and the use of the filibuster for judicial nominees, "except in extraordinary circumstances." In other words, a group of Senators from opposing sides of the political aisle forged a consensus and made the right decision (novel concept, I know). Once the Democrats became the majority party, Reid stated when asked if he would ever use the "nuclear option", "As long as I am the leader, the answer's no...I hope we never ever get to that again because I really do believe it will ruin our country."
Times change though. Senator Reid exercised the "nuclear option" in 2013 so that the Senate could approve several federal judicial and Executive Office appointments during President Obama's administration. At the time, Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was vehemently opposed to the "nuclear option" stating, "It's a sad day in the history of the Senate." Today, the roles have flipped - again. The Republicans now hold the power in the Senate, and Mitch McConnell is now the Majority Leader. Ironically, it is now Senator McConnell who is on the brink of exercising the "nuclear option" (most political experts anticipate that the move will occur today, April 6, 2017) in order to move to approve President Trump's nominee (Neil Gorsuch) to the U.S. Supreme Court. Most political pundits are saying that today's decision by McConnell (which stands in stark contrast to his comments in 2013) will effectively end the Senate filibuster.
If all of this back and forth flip-flopping sounds hypocritical, it's because it is! Regardless of which party you support (and both sides are pointing the proverbial finger and blaming each other for getting to this point), it seems wrong that such an important "rule" can be changed so easily and quickly by whoever holds the power. To be fair, the Senate can only change a "rule" with a majority approval. However, one could argue that such an important rules change requires consensus among the different stakeholders (in this case, members of both parties), as supported by the "Gang of 14" in 2005. Regardless, it just doesn't seem right, fair, or even ethical that a major rules change against over 200 years of precedent could be made in this manner, especially when it involves something as important as the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice (which is a lifelong appointment).
Unfortunately, the concept of a leader changing the rules to suit his or her own needs is not new. I believe that ethical leadership requires important decisions regarding rules changes to be made with integrity. Integrity mandates that rules changes need to occur with the utmost transparency. The process by which decisions are made to change a rule, particularly one of such importance, absolutely must be understood and made by consensus. Moreover, consensus can't be just about majority rule. Key stakeholders from all sides (even opposing sides) should have the opportunity to voice their opinion and state their views. Ideally, the rules should be changed well in advance of the moment that they will be applied. Anything less opens the door to deception, chicanery, and power corruption. I am reminded again of one of my all-time favorite cartoons, "Calvin and Hobbes" by Bill Watterson. Calvin and Hobbes used to play a game that they called "Calvinball" - the game had only one rule, which stated that the players could never play the game with the same rules twice. Rules were made up on the fly - as Watterson stated, "It's pretty simple: You make up the rules as you go." Leaders, government or otherwise, should not be playing "Calvinball."
No comments:
Post a Comment