The U.S. Senate has been called “the world’s greatest deliberative body.” Over it’s history, it has conducted long, in-depth debates over complex and tumultuous issues.

Indeed, that’s just what the Founders intended. In setting Senate terms at six years, James Madison and the other framers of the Constitution wanted to create a legislative body that would be generally unaffected by the popular whims of the moment. They reasoned — correctly — that the House of Representatives would be more responsive owing to its members being compelling to stand election more frequently.

But the days of the great and thoughtful debates between men like Daniel Webster and John C. Calhoun are long behind us, and the Senate of today seems to most closely resemble a daily playground fight.

This week, eminent columnist Bob Novak, who has been covering the Senate since the Kennedy presidency, turned his attention to Majority Leader Harry Reid’s use of a previously arcane procedure known as “Filling the Tree” to stymie debate. Novak could have selected a dozen other such tactics, the threat of which in years past would have forced Senators to find another solution, lest they demonstrate in public a terrible breakdown of the Senate’s historic comity.

For while the Senate has been the home of great debate, it has also been the birthplace of great compromise (like this one, for example). Senators in ages past used to forge deep friendships with one another that transcended partisan labels. When all else failed, there were always a few who could sit down quietly and look for a solution to a thorny problem.

But today’s Senators, surrounded as they are by all-too-often sycophantic staffers, lobbyists and donors, don’t have the incentive to form those relationships. Meanwhile, the pursuit of media appearances and campaign funds has dramatically limited the amount of social time that members spend with one another.

The result? A breakdown of dialogue, both official and unofficial. Leaders on both sides use the Senate’s rules to score political points rather than finding ways to shape important legislation.

But the worst part, as Novak observes, is that the rest of us are either too apathetic or too ill-information to care. Behavior that would have sparked outrage in the past barely registers a footnote in most daily newspapers.

It strikes me that this is an area where we bloggers could really help. To be sure, most bloggers are strong partisans, but surely we can hold our own party leaders to account when they behave in a way that disgraces the institution in which they serve. Because — and let’s be honest here — if the Senate is in a death spiral, as James says, there is more than enough blame to go around.

The FEC has been effectively shut down since December because the Senate refused to confirm appointees to the Commission, leaving it short of the quorum necessary to do business. The heart of the dispute was the nomination of Hans von Spakovsky, who had previously worked in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.

I celebrated the effective shuttering of the Commission because, well, I like freedom, and the FEC isn’t exactly a bastion of it. Indeed, the prospect of going through a Presidential election without a functioning FEC, matching funds or silly advisory opinions positively filled me with glee.

Unfortunately, true to form, the White House caved yesterday, aided and abetted by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. (You can read his statement below the fold.) Under an agree struck with Senate Democrats, the Senate will confirm three nominees and be allowed to defeat von Spakovsky separately.

So, in a few weeks, the FEC will be back up and running. What a total bummer.

UPDATE: Bob Bauer, one of the top election law specialists in either party (and is also Counsel to Senator Obama’s campaign) weighs in, accusing the White House of trying to shape the Commission in a way that benefits Senator McCain. Both the timing and the decision not to reappoint Commissioner Mason support Bauer’s argument. Professor Hasen also weighs in with similar thoughts. It’s hard to argue with either point of view.

So now, two of my favorite saw-horses have come together: Disappointment that the FEC is back in business and even more evidence that Senator McCain’s reformer persona is nothing but a disingenuous act by a fundamentally dishonest politician.

» Continue Reading

The American Justice Partnership is an amazing coalition of organizations working on legal / tort reform at the state level. Dan Pero is the President, and he’s been doing a great job for the last couple of years. Today, the Partnership announced a new blog, which Pero is authoring. I’ve checked it out, and it looks pretty good. It’s definitely a resource for anyone who is interested in legal reform.

You can check it out at AmericanCourthouse.org.

On a personal note, I’m amused and happy to see Dan join the blogosphere. I worked for Dan a couple of years back at the Sterling Corporation. I can say that Dan is one of the smartest and most knowledgeable folks I’ve ever worked for, but Dan was not exactly known for his technical prowess. So his arrival in the blogosphere is yet another testament to just how friendly the medium can be.

Welcome, Dan. I look forward to reading your contributions in the months to come.

Recently, the great folks at Public Affairs News, which covers the UK and European PA industries, asked me to write a review of Clay Shirky’s outstanding new book Here Comes Everybody. The review has been published in their May issue, but it’s not on their website, so here’s a reprint:

Too often, books focusing on so-called ‘web 2.0’ seem an endless repetition of the same old talking points. But Clay Shirky’s Here Comes Everybody offers a refreshingly different, thoughtful and scholarly perspective.

Here Comes Everybody is full of insights, and is a must-read, especially for those who suspect that the buzz about the internet’s impact is over-hyped.

At its core, this is not a book about the internet. Instead, it’s really about social behavior and group dynamics.

Shirky’s conclusion that the internet has fundamentally altered the way people form groups and, more importantly, what those groups can accomplish, is spot on and well argued.

‘Social tools are dramatically improving our ability to share, co-operate, and act together. As everyone… adopts these tools, it is leading to epochal change,’ he writes. In isolation, that view sounds delightfully theoretical and detached, but what’s the practical impact?

One of Shirky’s central arguments centres on the concept of mass amateurisation. In the same way that the printing press brought the written word to the masses, the internet is equipping anyone with an interest with the tools necessary to take on almost any task. In public affairs parlance, we might call the same concept by a different name: democratisation.

Anyone who has observed the effectiveness of well-funded NGOs backed by hundreds of thousands of supporters has seen its impact. This, Shirky would argue, demonstrates the de-professionalisation of public affairs.

For sure, relationships are still important, but because the internet makes it easier for groups to form and take action, public pressure on elected officials is going to become even easier, more frequent, and more effective.

One can reasonably argue over whether this development will ultimately result in better government policy. But it is now beyond question that it is happening.

While specialists will always be necessary to help clients navigate the vagaries of government, when it comes to making an impact, public affairs practitioners have a choice: adapt activities in light of the societal changes that the internet is sweeping forward or be tethered to methods and approaches whose effectiveness will steadily decline in coming years.

(Cross posted at the day-job blog.)

Dr. Joyner nails it:

There’s a reason that freedom of speech and freedom of press occupy the same space in the Bill of Rights; they’re inextricably linked. Without information to form opinions, the ability to express opinions is meaningless. Conversely, information is useless unless one is free to share one’s opinions.

And there’s more:

America’s early journalists were merely citizens interested in the news. There was no such thing as J-School and the concept of credentialing would have seemed absurd. Over time, however, journalism moved from a craft to a profession, with many of the accouterments of the latter. This has been mostly, but not entirely, positive.

Professionalism arose out of a dark period in American media. Yellow Journalism and a tabloid mentality stripped newspapers of any value, since people had no reason to trust what they were reading. A canon of ethics was necessary, including the expectation that reporters attempt to present information objectively and truthfully. Theoretically, at least, opinion was to be clearly labeled and distinguished from factual reportage. In reality, of course, that ideal was never reached. Given that human beings staff newspapers and other media, it was never attainable to begin with.

Joyner’s discussion of these fundamentals of freedom and the professionalization of the media spring from a larger dialogue about the role and responsibility of citizen journalists.

In his new book Here Comes Everybody, Clay Shirky embarks on a lengthy and useful discussion about how technology has driven the mass amateurization of work previously limited to professionals. His most compelling example harkens back to the invention of the printing press. Moveable type brought information to the masses. It also made thousands of scribes irrelevant. (Or redundant, in the parlance of the UK.)

Needless to say, the scribes didn’t take kindly to the printers. The monks considered the ink-stained wretches beneath them — a scourge undermining the written word. But when, nearly a century after the printing press was invented, a leading scribe wrote a lengthy defense of his profession, calling forth the weight of history and tradition, he sought the broadest audience, and so he ensured his essay was printed on a printed press.

Today, we find the professional media zealously (and ineffectually) guarding the gates to their castle. The difference between professional and amateur is no longer relevant. Each is capable of gathering and distributing the news, and each must have the freedom to do so. Arguing over the scope of credentials is akin to quarreling over how much water to put in the bucket while your house burns to the ground. It’s the freedom that matters, not the credentials.

Late last night, Prime Minister Gordon Brown began his first trip to the U.S. as head of Her Majesty’s Government.

I had been paying only passing attention to the trip, as it seemed to offer little hope that anything impactful would be achieved.

But then I heard the destination for the PM’s transatlantic flight, and his itinerary for his first day in the U.S., and I realized something impactful already has happened.

Brown’s first stop? New York City. And his first destination? The U.N.

Now, I suspect that if asked, the folks at Downing Street would say that the decision to go to NY first was purely a result of scheduling concerns or convenience or whatever. (I actually have asked Downing Street this question via their Twitter feed. If they respond, I will post their answer is in its entirety.)

But over the past few weeks, political watchers are starting to notice that Mr. Brown may not prioritize the British relationship with the United States to the same extent as some of his predecessors.

Heritage Foundation scholar Nile Gardiner, writing in the Sunday Times, points out that, “since Brown took charge, the British embassy [in Washington] no longer uses the term ’special relationship’, and that the Anglo-American alliance has been downgraded to Britain’s ‘most important bilateral relationship’ in deference to Brussels.” (More on this from a story in the Telegraph.)

So it’s not hard to conclude that the Prime Minister’s travel schedule reflects his foreign policy priorities.

But as UK blogger Tim Montgomerie points out, “The world is a safer, stronger place when Britain and America are close.”

For me, as an American who loves Great Britain and believes that the Anglo-American alliance is one of the most important and effective on the planet, it’s disappointing to see either leader treat it this way.

Is this the end of the special relationship? Not a chance. Soon there will be a new President, and in another year or two, there might even be a new Prime Minister. Each may have different views and priorities than his predecessor. And thanks to the common culture, historical and language bonds between Britain and the U.S., the relationship can be swiftly rebuilt in the right hands.

That’s a hope for the future. For now, I hope Mr. Brown’s visit to the U.S. helps him see how truly vital the relationship is — for both nations.

What are government’s core functions? This is the philosophical question of the ages. There is no perfect answer. For my money (literally), government’s three most important tasks are (1) Maintaining the armed forces to keep up safe from foreign threats; (2) Exercising its police powers to prevent crime and maintain order; and (3) Building and maintaining the infrastructure that keeps commerce flowing.

So this story from Popular Mechanics (ht: Glenn, natch), caught my interest.

It’s no secret that federal, state and local government have all basically ignored infrastructure issues for about the last fifty years. So it should be no great surprise that our infrastructure is crumbling. Meanwhile, we keep asking government to pay for all sorts of extraneous crap.

It’s time to get off the dime and get this stuff fixed. That means getting our priorities straight. But we desperately need more roads, bridges, and rail, and we’ve got to fix the big stuff that’s out there decaying even as we speak. Traffic in big cities is already having a tremendous impact on commerce, and that’s bad for all of us. Not to mention the hours Americans spend stuck in cars instead of doing more important things.

So, note to politicians: grow some backbone, and get busy.

I have been hesitant to blog about British politics, as I still consider myself very much a newcomer, and I’m certainly not yet up on all of the vagaries of Parliament.

But on a recent trip to my local newsagent, this front page headline caused me to spend my 80p on the Guardian instead of the Telegraph. And the details in the story didn’t disappoint.

It seems that the Labour-led government is considering various electoral “reforms.” Among these are transforming the House of Lords to a “Senate” and making its members elected rather than peers who serve for life. This has caused concern among some ministers about the perception of the House of Commons. Combine that with low turnout in the last election, and the fact that MPs in districts with strong Lib Dem or other third party presences are elected with less than 50 percent of the vote, and some ministers are downright worried about ensuring the “primacy” and “legitimacy” of Commons.

Their solution? Among other things, compulsory voting.

So, let me see if I understand this. Worried about the legitimacy of a democratic body, they want to make the voting system less democratic by forcing people to vote?

The right to vote is the fundamental principal in a democracy. But voting is a choice that free people make. And not voting is a choice, too. A decision not to vote can convey dissatisfaction with the choices. It can convey disgust with the current state affairs. Or it can be a symptom of laziness and apathy. None of these can be addressed with a legal mandate to vote. Indeed, my bet is that it would only make people angrier with the system.

And by undermining freedom, mandatory voting will most assuredly undermine the legitimacy of Parliament even more. After all, who can take seriously an election that includes participation by a whole bunch of people who don’t want to be there?

It seems to me that the ministers behind this thinking have lost sight of the forest and are utterly preoccupied with the trees. So long as Her Majesty’s Government is drawn from the Commons, and so long as the Commons controls the government’s purse, it will be the leading legislative body in the United Kingdom, in perception and in fact.

Mandatory voting is a blind alley that sounds like it belongs in a despotic regime, banana Republican or Soviet republic, not the oldest democracy in the world.

(If you’re interested in more on this, the Guardian received a number of letters about the story, which you can read here.)

This morning in the Washington Post, George Will turns his attention to the question of compensation for federal judges.

Will points to this report by the Chief Justice, which was issued by tradition on New Years Day, but “lost in the cacophony of political news.”

In his report, Chief Justice Roberts eloquently argues that federal judges are woefully underpaid. Pointing out that federal judges have been denied “the
same cost-of-living pay adjustments that other federal employees have received since 1989,” Roberts voices his support for a bill in Congress to address that sorry state of affairs. Then he delivers his coup-de-grace:

This salary restoration legislation is vital now that the denial of annual increases over the years has left federal trial judges—the backbone of our system of justice—earning about the same as (and in some cases less than) first-year lawyers at firms in major cities, where many of the judges are located.

I do not need to rehearse the compelling arguments in favor of this legislation. They have already been made by distinguished jurists, lawyers, and economists in congressional hearings, letters, and editorials—and seconded by a broad spectrum of commercial, governmental, and public interest organizations that appear as litigants before the courts. I simply ask once again for a moment’s reflection on how America would look in the absence of a skilled and independent Judiciary. Consider the critical role of our courts in preserving individual liberty, promoting commerce, protecting property, and ensuring that every person who appears in an American court can expect fair and impartial justice. The cost of this long overdue legislation—less than .004% of the annual federal budget—is miniscule in comparison to what is at stake.

To understand the truly horrifying disparity between compensation for private attorneys and federal judges, one only need read a few posts from David Lat’s “Nationwide Pay Raise Watch” at the indispensable Above the Law.

Will points out the danger: “The cost of not [addressing the pay disparity] will be a decrease in the quality of an increasingly important judiciary — and a change in its perspective. Fifty years ago, about 65 percent of the federal judiciary came from the private sector — from the practicing bar — and 35 percent from the public sector. Today 60 percent come from government jobs, less than 40 percent from private practice. This tends to produce a judiciary that is not only more important than ever but also is more of an extension of the bureaucracy than a check on it.”

As a matter of simple common sense, we all have an interest in ensuring our legal system is the best it can be. That means populating the bench with the brightest legal minds. But between low salaries and the meat grinder-like confirmation process, more than a few of the best lawyers make a habit of quietly turning down nominations to the federal bench.

That’s a reality that should disturb us all, and Congress first and foremost. Here’s hoping that the legislative branch can get its act together in the next month or two and make some progress on judicial compensation. That would be a good first step.

Cross posted at Confirm Them.

Based on the discussion at Monday’s arguments, five or more Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court may believe that the government must overcome its highest burden for justifying its attempt to restrict a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms.

I’ll leave further discussion of that issue to Cam’s expertise while I turn to another question: What are the implications of their views on other individual liberties that are specifically named in the Constitution? For example, the freedoms of speech, press and religion that are outlined in the First Amendment.

It seems to me that, if anything, the rights protected in the First Amendment are just as clear — if not more so — than the second. Consider the language:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

For more than two hundreds years, the debate about the Second Amendment has hung on the Framers’ collective decision to explain themselves with a bunch of language about necessity and security and their relationship to having a militia. Imagine if it read this way: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Not much grey area there, huh? And there would be no need to debate the definition of “militia,” because the term doesn’t appear. Constructed this way, the amendment is absolute, and absolutely clear.

Now, go back and read the First Amendment again. “Congress shall make no law…” The language is so simple, and utterly clear. There is no grey area. No explanation. No modifying language. Nothing.

Focus on the speech provision. “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.”

Laying aside the long-standing legal debate over the definitions of “abridging” and “speech,” consider the legal standards at play. In the McConnell case, the Supreme Court invented a messy legal standard that not even experts can decipher effectively. As applied in that case, the standard was low enough to allow the government to effectively regulate almost anything it wants. Applying the same “compelling interest” standard in McConnell that it is considering in the D.C. gun law case would, in my view, have rendered an entirely different result — one that would have found BCRA and other laws banning certain varieties of speech unconstitutional.

And that seems only logical. The language is so clear. So obvious to anyone who just, you know, reads it. So why must the court get wrapped around its axle? The answer, of course, is precedent.

It will be interesting to see how cases involving the Second Amendment evolve the Court’s reasoning in light of its decision. Here’s hoping the Court’s language in the D.C. gun case clear enough to avoid misunderstanding. I’m not holding my breath.