Lost in all the navel-gazing and one-upmanship over Bill Leighty’s candid comments has been substantive discussion about how appropriate it is for the governor to strong-arm legislators in order to push through his agenda. This is a matter to which I’ve given little thought in the past, so it’s really entirely new mental territory for me.
To begin on one end of the spectrum, nobody can seriously believe that the governor just tosses his ideas out there, waits for legislators to introduce those ideas, and just crosses his fingers and hopes they’ll pass. If a governor can’t convince a representative to support his bills, what’s wrong with lobbying those representative’s supporters? If the governor calls up a friend in the liquor industry and asks her to phone, say, Del. Dave Albo and suggest he support the governor’s transportation bill, is that off-sides? Surely Del. Albo wouldn’t change his vote due to the fear of losing a donor, would he? So that seems fair. And if that’s fair, I can’t see why the governor can’t talk to the major financial supporters of all of the representatives who oppose his top issues and see if they won’t have a chat with their guys in the General Assembly. I mean, that’s just politics, right?
On the other end of the spectrum, we have idealism. This is the idea that all bills live or die on their own merits, and that the governor, as a separate branch, needs to leave things alone and let the system work.
We are all stupider for that last paragraph. That’s ridiculous.
It seems clear to me that it is good and reasonable for the governor to engage in some strong-arming in order to get some of his agenda through. That, of course, is a huge gray area — how much strong-arming?
Republicans in the General Assembly clearly support a great deal of strong-arming — look no further than their recent knifing of Jim Dillard as retribution against the now-retired delegate. To see House Speaker Bill Howell (R-Stafford) getting huffy about Governor Kaine’s alleged tactics, “asking that the governor publicly express his commitment to review and act on all legislation placed before him solely on the merits of that measure, to avoid inappropriate partisan considerations, and not to use threats as political leverage to garner support for his transportation agenda.” It’s extremely hard to take the man seriously just three weeks after he used Dillard as a threat to garner support for his transportation agenda (or lack thereof).
The fact that Republicans in the General Assembly engage in this sort of behavior doesn’t make it acceptable, but it does make Howell look like a bit of a fool for his manufactured outrage.
I’m far from an expert on the General Assembly or, more specifically, how work really gets done there. But I’ve heard tell over drinks at Richmond bars, late at night. It’s not pretty. Overt threats are not unheard of. Light blackmail, bribery of all stripes. This is politics — it’s not a sport for sissies — and I’m just not enough of a Pollyanna to pretend to be surprised or upset.
A major plank in the Republican platform is “tort reform,” the euphemism for cutting off one of the major sources of funding for Democratic candidates. This isn’t founded in any actual desire to improve the system — it’s nothing more than a way to choke off the supply of cash to the Democratic Party. Compared to such heavy-handed tactics, Kaine’s light touch seems downright sweet.
If the governor is working through contribution channels to persuade representatives who oppose his agenda, I’m not sure I can fault him for it.
I look forward to discussion on this. As I wrote, this is not a topic that I feel that I have plumbed, so I’ll be curious to see what thoughts that people have.
how does tort reform affect Democratic fundraising? Are plaintiff’s attorneys disproportionately Democrats?
I.Publius: yes. Trial lawyers in general are disproportionately Democrats. Why else do you think the GOP is fixated on villifying them?
Howell’s protestations that the Governor inventied political hardball are hilarious. You need look only to the way the House GOP changed the rules this session to see that Howell, et. al., are masters of political hardball. They put everything in play for political retribution – committee assignments can now be changed at the whim of the Speaker at any time, subcommittees can be created ad hoc (with no propotionality rules) to deal with specific issues, subcommittees can do just about anything in more or less complete secrecy, etc. These rules certainly aren’t about better government. They’re about making political hardball easier and more effective for the majority party.
The only things that are different with the Leighty situation are 1) the hardball is being played more in the open, 2) Howell and pals look silly, rather than savvy-ish, and 3) Howell and pals and the Washington Post, the AP, and a slew of other media outlets substituted reading a blog for actually researching a story.
Giving Mr. Leighty the benefit of the doubt, perhaps it was all just a joke.
But say there’s some truth in it–is telling a bill’s backers that their bill is in trouble-presumably veto trouble–regardless of the merits of the bill an acceptable means of lobbying? Maybe it is. But do you think that stuff like this is a source of the public’s angst regarding politicians. Judging a bill simply on political concerns without regard to the merit seems like a constituent’s worst nightmare.
I know it is the way things are done. But are we happy with that? Is that “good enough”? Is it Ok for a sitting Governor (one of the good guys) to acknowledge that it is “good enough”? Or are we as dems just so happy that its finally us doing it that we’re willing to look the other way. Maybe we trust the goals of the administration and so we’re happy with the “by any means necessary” approach.
Maybe we are–I guess we should be glad that the good guys are at least as crafty as the bad guys. We’ll show them. But it seems that with the curtain thrown back-this all could devolve right quick and the actual issues that people are concerned about might be the casualties. Then again, perhaps this the only means for dealing with the house–speaking to them in a language they understand in order to do the clearly right thing.
THis is a tough one–thanks to waldo for facilitating the discussion.
I would give this argument a slight bit of credulity if not for the fact that Kaine himself was the one to operate on the idea of non-partisanship and “a better way.”
And I have to wonder, Shaun, whether this is comparatively non-partisan. That is, to threaten to veto an unrelated bill isn’t partisan, it’s just bare-knuckle politics. I assume that the threat would just as easily apply to, say, Ward Armstrong as it would any Republican.
The thing is, I’m not sure if that makes it better, or worse.
Politics ain’t beanbag and doing what you have to do to get as much of your agenda passed as you can is what it’s ultimately all about.
That said, strong-arming is a tactic better threatened than used, and better threatened or used quietly, behind the scenes. No need to sully one’s self in public any more than just being involved in partisan politics does naturally.
I think this particular dust-up got more attention than it would have pre-Warner because of the excess talk of bi-partisanship by Democrats and by the exalted aura of competency and “non-partisanship” that has built up around long-time public servant Leighty.
I can handle a tough-guy partisan stepping in from the get-go, but it’s tougher to accept a supposed non-partisan technocrat suddenly morphing into partisan hackery at a town hall meeting. Town halls, after all, are supposed to be paragons of democracy, discussing the issues, not trashing politicians or making partisan threats.
Still, I wish Republicans would use that old Reagan head shake and “there you go again” shorthand when this kind of thing happens. Drop it and move on, saying you’re bigger than petty partisan sniping.
Even if you aren’t ….
I think it would be awesome if political considerations were not the first, second, and third priorities in policy making on the big issues. (There are a slew of smaller issues that don’t get sucked into the political vortex and get real substantive consideration.) But that’s not the way it works.
Shaun, Carrington, Waldo – I’m not clear on what alternative Kaine has to playing the game the way Howell and Pals set it up. The only sure thing he’ll wind up with by refusing to engage is a gutted agenda and a House leadership with even more hubris next session.
The reality of the one-term Governorship is that job number one is to fight like hell to pass an agenda, through any means necessary. They’ve got two cycles to do it, few if any political consequences for roughness (Kaine’s victory shows that Warner’s hardball didn’t cost us D’s anything), and, at least for now, a House that’s set things up such that bare-knuckles is the only way to win.
I’m not sure the hand wringing about whether it’s the best way is meaningful. It’s kind of like hand wringing about physics. It is what it is. The only question is whether you use it to fly or splat.
I know it’s lame to respond just to say this, but…great point, Will.
In response to your comments, Shayna, I think what worries me is that we Democrats will find ourselves hurtling down that slippery slope and, come 2011, we’ll refuse to institute bipartisan redistricting, instead gerrymandering to favor ourselves. It’ll be back to the bad old days of when Democrats ran things last time around.
I could easily see us — and I include myself in this — talking ourselves into that during the next few years, feeling totally justified every step of the way.
“This isn’t founded in any actual desire to improve the system — it’s nothing more than a way to choke off the supply of cash to the Democratic Party.”
I agree with your premise that this is a method to deprive the Democratic Party of a major source of campaign cash, however as an attorney the level of tort abuses nationwide is staggering and in some areas, out of control. I’m not so cynical to think the GOP is doing this solely to punish Democrats; many of the tort proposals make sound economic sense as well.
I don’t doubt that there are some people who believe that Americans cannot be trusted to adjudicate as a member of a jury, and that their decisions should be artificially limited. But as a plank for the Republican Party, I cannot be persuaded that it’s there for any reason other than to starve Democratic candidates of money.
In reading thru the responses here, the one thing that sticks out is that politics is a very nasty business – on both sides of the aisle. What gets lost in all of this is what is best for the people. And until we elect folks who put the people’s interests first, it won’t matter who is in the majority. It will continue to be about horsetrading for power.