House Members Give New Meaning to "Chutzpah"

Posted: Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Resident Scholar Norman J. Ornstein

For the past week I have been in Asia, going from China to Mongolia and then to Japan. I am attending an annual Asia Society conference that brings key leaders from across Asia together with a small number of Americans. I have been a regular attendee for several years and along the way have picked up a good deal of information about this part of the world. And much of it is relevant to Congress as it works on Asia-related issues on several fronts.

But it also was a way to step way back from my regular immersion in the day-to-day Congressional jousting and watch the goings-on from afar. My access has been intermittent, but I did get regular e-mail press releases from various Congressional leaders, including a slew from the office of House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio).

Let me start with the earmarks. The exemplary definition of chutzpah is the child who murders his parents and then pleads with the court for mercy on the grounds that he is an orphan. Maybe that definition can be supplanted.

We have a chance now to make constructive policy advances in education, immigration, energy, the environment, health, trade and many other areas. The failure to do so would reflect badly on both parties and move the country even further from resolving critical matters.

It has been an absolute hoot to watch the GOP leaders--who on their watch took a minor-league earmark system and deliberately orchestrated its explosion, gleefully presided over the massive expansion of government spending, and gave us examples such as former Speaker Dennis Hastert (Ill.) and California Reps. Gary Miller and Ken Calvert using the earmark route to make or supplement their personal fortunes--suddenly become ardent reformers. It has been an equal hoot to watch President Bush, who never raised a single peep when earmarks exploded and never vetoed an appropriations bill during his first six years, suddenly becoming a born-again fiscal watchdog.

But as one who appreciates politics performed at a high professional level, I have to admire their ability to turn on a dime and get away with it--to go on the offensive, gain the support of editorial boards and run rings around the House Democratic leadership. Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) has a compelling legislative explanation for why he decided to fold earmarks into the conference process. His decision was not a cynical ploy to keep the spotlight off individual earmarks, but an effort to manage a cumbersome process within tight deadlines. But, boy, was it a political gaffe. Give the minority credit for seizing on it and turning it to their own political advantage.

Republicans in the House have performed at a very high political level since this Congress began, showing no signs of depression at the loss of majority and adapting to minority status easily. Meanwhile, Democrats, even those who spent decades in the majority in a previous era, have had much more trouble adapting to being in charge. Some of this is the arrogance that comes with winning a big election victory. Some comes from the cynical reaction of some Democrats, such as Rep. John Murtha (Pa.), who saw the use of themes like the "culture of corruption" as nothing more than a ploy to win seats. But a good part of the reason for Republican artfulness and Democratic disarray is that Democratic leaders have been trying to live up to their promise to create a more open House with minority participation allowed.

In some cases, the willingness to reach out has had real payoffs, including the quite remarkable bipartisan cooperation on the first gun bill in a long time--a bill in which the Democratic leadership also managed to find common ground with the National Rifle Association(!).

Read rest of article