Thursday, July 13, 2006
American disdain for legislatures
Many Americans have a dislike of both legislatures and political parties. The history of State governments supports the proposition that the public prefers a strong governor to a strong legislature. Many people regard a legislature as a hindrance to good, effective government rather than a means. Many State legislatures are “part-time;” that is, the legislative session is defined in the State constitution as beginning on a certain date and ending on a certain date. In some cases, the regular session occurs only every other year. The legislature must finish its business by the date set in the constitution. It can be called into special session by the governor and then only to consider a specific piece of legislation.
Governors, on the other hand, are powerful officials. Historically, their power has grown during the life of the United States. In most States, governors are well-paid. Legislators are often paid a perdiem for the time the legislature is in session. I can recall something that happened while I was a graduate student at the University of Illinois. In those days, the governor was Adlai Stevenson. One year the legislature finished its session without reconciling differences between versions of bills enacted by the State Senate and the State House of Representatives. No problem; the governor simply picked the version he liked best and signed it into law.
This scorn for legislatures and admiration for governors occurs in the public attitude toward the federal government as well. Mr. Bush is currently claiming the power to act without authorization or interference or oversight from the Congress in certain areas, particularly the conduct of the “war” on terror. Presidents have since the time of George Washington claimed a free hand in the conduct of foreign policy. The surprising thing about Bush’s claim is not the arrogance of the claim but rather the apparent willingness of the public to go along with it. Except in the “liberal” media, there hasn’t been any criticism of Mr. Bush’s assertion that he alone can dictate how the prisoners in the “war” are to be treated and whether and how they are to be tried.
Presidents and governors are thought of as being above party. A governor or a president is governor/president of “all the people,” as Lyndon Johnson claimed. Legislatures, on the other hand, are dominated by parties. The majority party controls the agenda and the minority party – well, complains about the majority party. The public doesn’t like or understand the partisanship. I recently saw a television show that featured a focus group that was discussing government and its problems. One lady said she didn’t understand why there had to be political parties. In effect, why couldn’t everyone simply belong to the same party, especially the members of the legislature. Getting rid of the partisan bickering would make it much easier for the legislature to get things done and focus on the really important problems facing the State.
Governors, on the other hand, are powerful officials. Historically, their power has grown during the life of the United States. In most States, governors are well-paid. Legislators are often paid a perdiem for the time the legislature is in session. I can recall something that happened while I was a graduate student at the University of Illinois. In those days, the governor was Adlai Stevenson. One year the legislature finished its session without reconciling differences between versions of bills enacted by the State Senate and the State House of Representatives. No problem; the governor simply picked the version he liked best and signed it into law.
This scorn for legislatures and admiration for governors occurs in the public attitude toward the federal government as well. Mr. Bush is currently claiming the power to act without authorization or interference or oversight from the Congress in certain areas, particularly the conduct of the “war” on terror. Presidents have since the time of George Washington claimed a free hand in the conduct of foreign policy. The surprising thing about Bush’s claim is not the arrogance of the claim but rather the apparent willingness of the public to go along with it. Except in the “liberal” media, there hasn’t been any criticism of Mr. Bush’s assertion that he alone can dictate how the prisoners in the “war” are to be treated and whether and how they are to be tried.
Presidents and governors are thought of as being above party. A governor or a president is governor/president of “all the people,” as Lyndon Johnson claimed. Legislatures, on the other hand, are dominated by parties. The majority party controls the agenda and the minority party – well, complains about the majority party. The public doesn’t like or understand the partisanship. I recently saw a television show that featured a focus group that was discussing government and its problems. One lady said she didn’t understand why there had to be political parties. In effect, why couldn’t everyone simply belong to the same party, especially the members of the legislature. Getting rid of the partisan bickering would make it much easier for the legislature to get things done and focus on the really important problems facing the State.
