Publication         The Economist Date of publication
930703 Section             AMERICAN Headline           
The Congress of the United States: An apology Volume
number       328 Issue number        7818 UK page no.    
    50 US page no.         30 Europe page no.     58 Far
East page no.   36 Indexing terms      US
Congress|profile, Lexington;Lexington|US Congress

The Congress of the United States: An apology

IN COMMON with others, this column has, on occasion,
found it expedient to hold up to public ridicule and
contempt the members of the United States Congress. We
have believed them to be a bunch of men and women of
extraordinary pomposity, as windbagged as the worst
Welshman, unable to raise their sights above the most
mundane interests of their local constituents, and
generally mildly corrupt.

We apologise. In the past six months Congress has shown
why the founding fathers put the legislative power in the
first article of the constitution, seating the president
below the salt in Article II. Throughout the spring its
Democratic members, a majority in both houses, have been
faced with an unpopular president, the centrepiece of
whose programme was an even more unpopular economic
programme which combined spending cuts with stiff tax
increases. They could have deserted him (all members of
the House and a third of the Senate will face the
electorate two years before Bill Clinton has to). With
only a few exceptions, they did not. Instead, in a
development so unexpected that its significance has gone
almost unremarked, they improved the economic plan
substantially, making its controls on spending tougher
than the president originally wished, and stripping out
some misguided tax breaks for special interests.

More than one cherished canard about Congress has had to
be abandoned in the past nine months. Take the claim,
much heard last year, that Congress was a ``permanent
government'', made up of incumbents with a rate of
re-election that made them look like noblemen of the
ancien regime. Bunk. In January the House took in a
freshman class 110-strong, equal to a quarter of its
size. What makes this even more remarkable is that the
majority party kept control. The freshmen, it was feared,
would be loose cannons, self-righteous, interested only
in telling everyone that they had selflessly waived their
free-parking privileges. Bunk again. With a few
exceptions, freshmen have increased the sense of
seriousness of Congress, and have helped to ensure that
it did not cut the legs from under a new president.

But surely members of Congress are so obsessed with that
terrible maxim, ``all politics is local'' that they
cannot take a vote against the interests of their
constituents? Semi-bunk. It is quite true that
congressmen scratch each other's eyes out to get on the
pork-doling appropriations and public-works committees.
But consider the Defence Base Closure and Realignment
Commission. Precisely because it is difficult to get
agreement to shut down superfluous military
bases--members used to vote to keep their home bases open
in an orgy of mutual backscratching--Congress established
the independent commission in 1991. It has just completed
its work. Working encumbered by handcuffs that it slapped
upon itself, Congress can vote only to accept or reject
the list in its entirety. Although this has not stopped
the special pleading, it has splendidly depoliticised the
end result.

But doesn't Congress give in to local interests by being
hopelessly protectionist? Another bit of semi-bunk. If
Congress were protectionist, the crucial 1991 vote to
negotiate a free-trade agreement with Mexico would not
have sailed through both houses, which it did. The key
point is presidential cover. The instincts of some
congressmen often tend towards protectionism: but if the
White House maps out a free-trade path, they will usually
go along with it, explaining to cross constituents that
it was all the president's fault. The danger comes when
the White House prevaricates on the matter.

The point is not that Congress is protectionist, but that
it is powerful. Unlike legislatures in Britain, France or
Germany, it is not in the grip of the executive; it has
its own source of authority and is not afraid to use it.
The constitution gives Congress power to ``regulate
commerce with foreign nations''. If the French
Assembl(acute)ee Nationale had that sort of authority,
the world would not be wondering whether the GATT talks
were dead; they would never have been alive.

Congress has worked well this year, thinks Tom Mann of
the Brookings Institution, because it has realised the
limits of its power. It has worked with the president's
agenda, not set up one of its own. With hindsight, the
most disastrous congressional experiment of recent years
came when Jim Wright, the Speaker of the House from 1987
to 1989, tried to carve out a distinctly Democratic
programme in opposition to two Republican presidents.
That will not work; the constitutional structure operates
best when neither end of Pennsylvania Avenue thinks it
has a monopoly of rectitude.

Broadly speaking, that is how things now are. Not all is
sweetness and light. The president ignored Republicans in
his first few months, but he will have to sweet-talk them
if he is to get the North American Free Trade Agreement
and welfare reform through Congress. Some observers say
that at least he now knows that. And we are bound to say
that our plaudits for Congress are mainly directed to the
House. The precise point of the Senate is still unclear.
Its rules of procedure still encourage an arrogant
individualism; it still cries out for a latter-day
Dickens to puncture the pomposity of Senator Weave
Balddom of Oklahoma or Senator Damn Dull of Georgia. It
is little short of terrifying that the Foreign Relations
Committee should grow moribund under the chairmanship of
Senator Courtly Skull of Rhode Island. But even the
Senate has behaved better than expected this year. So, in
a July 4th spirit of magnanimity to all our friends on
the Hill, we say: sorry. Now, if only they would
reintroduce spittoons up there, the shades of the
founding fathers might no longer be ashamed of their
handiwork. 

------------------------------------------------------------
The contents of this file are copyright 1993 by the
publisher in whose directory this file appeared. 
Unauthorized copying of this information is strictly
forbidden.  Please read the general notice at the top
menu of the Gopher Server for the Electronic Newsstand. 
For information regarding reprints, please send mail to
REPRINTS@Enews.Com
------------------------------------------------------------