When Congress convened in January, those who were watching got treated to a small but revealing moment: As John Boehner, the new minority leader of the House, was handing the House gavel over to incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi, he looked out at the assembled members and told them, “Be nice.”
It might have sounded like a jocular and insignificant point, but if Congress follows any single admonition this year, I hope it’s that one.
In truth, it shouldn’t even need saying. For an individual legislator, cultivating congenial relationships with other legislators ought to be a matter of habit. In order to get anything done, especially if it involves legislation, you have to work constantly to line up support, convince others that what you want to accomplish matters, and make it clear that you’re worth listening to. Even if others don’t agree with your goals, they’ll still respect your efforts and at least listen to your arguments.
But being nice — and especially, treating others fairly — is at the moment as much a group imperative as it is wise personal custom. Congress has just emerged from an extended period in which fairness and decent treatment of others were too often banished, and it created a toxic environment on Capitol Hill.
The new Democratic majority has an opportunity to freshen the atmosphere, and every American has a stake in whether or not they make good on that chance.
For if there’s any single lesson to be gleaned from the Republican takeover after the 1994 elections or the Democrats’ this year, it is that the manner in which a majority wields power has enormous consequences.
If members of the minority party lose on issues of policy but believe that the process was a fair one, they might be frustrated, but they’ll abide by the results.
If, on the other hand, they feel constantly slighted, ignored, shut out of the legislative process and treated overall as if they have nothing to contribute to the national dialogue, they will seethe with resentment. They will do everything in their power to frustrate the majority. And, the vicissitudes of politics being what they are, they will eventually be put back in a position of power.
Which is why I was somewhat disconcerted to see that the new Democratic majority in the House, which certainly understands the sting of unfair treatment, has on occasion yielded to the temptation of its newfound power to shut down Republican participation. It did so during the vaunted “first one hundred hours,” barring Republican amendments to the package of bills it had prepared in order to make good on Democrats’ campaign promises.
This was neither a good precedent nor, as it happens, all that necessary: Having passed its bills in a hurry, the House now has to sit around and wait for the Senate to act. It also cost it the benefits of legislative vetting that a robust debate offers — as Democrats discovered when it became clear that the wording of a proposed ethics law forbidding members from flying in private planes meant that those who were pilots could not fly their own aircraft.
Then House Democrats did it again, preparing a budget to keep the government running for the rest of the fiscal year that allowed no GOP amendments. Again, there were arguments to be made defending their actions: Time was short, and leading Democrats pointed out that the entire exercise would have been unnecessary had the GOP-dominated Congress acted on such a measure last year.
But let’s be honest: The majority can always come up with reasons for taking shortcuts that allow it to act. That’s not the point. The point is that in our democracy, the process is every bit as important as the legislation it produces. Fairness and trust should be the coin of the realm.
Congress represents everyone, not just those who voted for members who happen to form the majority. Allowing the regular order of hearings, amendments and debate to flourish — with fair restrictions to keep it wieldy, if necessary — would go a very long way to healing the scars of the last few years and make it less likely that Capitol Hill will return soon to the ugly bitterness that cost it so much public good will and led to legislative stalemate.
Lee Hamilton is director of the Center on Congress at Indiana University. He was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years.
Columns
HAMILTON: In Congress, courtesy matters
- Columns
-
-
CLERE: Walkout is absurd
The walkout by Indiana House Democrats entered its third week yesterday as tensions continued to rise and misinformation proliferated.
-
LADD: New Albany has new energy
New Albany is evolving. Public art has become more prevalent in the downtown, drawing more locals and outside visitors to our community; bringing more publicity.
-
NASH: We have to share the road
They are very predictable and almost every one of them say the same thing. They throw around words like “menace” and claim that the roads were meant for automobiles. It is always the same argument that bicycle riders don’t pay taxes and should be registered and be forced to get insurance just like cars.
-
STAWAR: Our family strategic plan
Objective 1: Consult tax professional to determine if contributions to job-seeking son, who has a college degree in fine arts, constitutes a charitable deduction (like supporting The Fund for the Arts).
-
HARBESON: Recycling: Will it ever stop coming around?
Is the Clark County mandatory recycling program finally against the ropes?
I hope so because I really don’t want to write yet another sequel to this sordid tale that would surely smell worse than Rocky’s armpits. -
RESCHKE: Don’t forget about our old buddies SOPA and PIPA
If you think the government or a corporation or anyone, really, won’t try to construe laws to meet their own personal needs regardless of the original intent of the law, then I’ve got some ocean-front property in Arizona to sell you.
-
HOWEY: Bauer leading Democrats from disaster to catastrophe
Had Bauer kept caucus losses to 55 seats, instead of 60, right-to-work probably wouldn’t have happened.
-
CUMMINS: Keep politics out of the Super Bowl
Before you jump to conclusions, I believe in capitalism, free trade and jobs, but am not supportive of Ponzi schemes, Wall Street criminals or sex traffic on any street. And I do not condone corporations giving large sums to politicians, who prostitute themselves in order to pay back the corporations. Nor do I approve of a presidential candidate with income of nearly $57,000 per day, paying only a 14 percent tax rate.
-
DODD: A school board in turmoil
- CHEERS AND JEERS — For Jan. 28-29
- More Columns Headlines
-







