Democracy is Dead: What’s So Funny about “Read the Bill”?
By Jonathan Bean on Jul 12, 2009 in Books, Constitution, Elections, Integrity, Law, Politics, Presidential Power, The State, corruption
“Lawmakers, read the bills before you vote,” by Jeff Jacoby (Boston Globe)
This “Read the Bills” movement has finally cut through political pretensions to reveal that there is no “deliberative democracy” in the USA. Apparently, members of Congress are simply asked to “react” or express “feelings” or channel interest-group concerns about broad notions like global warming, the economy, energy, and so on.
Not that democracy is an unalloyed good, but words ought to mean what they say. Otherwise, William Graham Sumner was right about “public servants” throwing the Constitution overboard:
If you take away the Constitution, what is American liberty and all the rest? Nothing but a lot of phrases. . . .
Any member of Congress who refuses, then “guffaws,” at the notion of “reading bills” is a candidate for expulsion from Congress. “Aye, there’s the rub”: who will read the bill of particulars against the scoundrel who presumes to speak in the name of “the people?” Who but his fellow scoundrels, who have continually mocked thoughtful, active, ongoing deliberation?
The Waxman-Markey bill (mentioned in above article) is a perfect example of the oligarchy in D.C.: fancy preambles with flights of prose followed by blank pages to be filled in later by a few “leaders” of Congress.
My worst students cannot read, write, or put together an extended argument for a position. In place of reason or analysis, they offer “feeling” or what they are told third-hand. To wit: They are perfect future congressmen (women) of America.
The best history students grapple with the primary stuff of history, its original intent, changing meaning, and significance. In the future, what can they “read” in between the pages of congressional acts? They cannot assume anything when few people had anything to do with the bill, and obscure bureaucrats file enabling regulations that carry enormous significance for future generations, all hidden from public view.
I’m sure we will be told that “Read the Bill” is not “on the up-and-up.” Right wingers must be behind it because they want to slow down the work of Congress. Leave aside the bare fact that Congress is not working and we still have ample exhibits of “right-wing” laws (e.g., USA PATRIOT Act) that sprang surprises on the Left because “we don’t read those things.”
I have researched the papers of men and women in nine presidential libraries, along with the records of many congressional committees. What impresses me is how little the White House and Congress know about the functioning of government. Some say that government has become too big to be safe (the Left) or efficient (the Right). I say government has become too big for democracy. If that is true, why bother voting? Heresy, but there is an argument for “those who refuse to vote.” (See Carl Watner and Wendy McElroy’s The Dissenting Electorate).
In short, our long march into oligarchy reminds me of the Old Whig slogan (I am working from memory):
“Man is free on election day, and everywhere in chains between elections.”
Further reading:
The End of Liberalism: The Second Republic of the United States (1969), by Theodore J. Lowi, offers a stinging and cogent critique of congressional abdication of its constitutional responsibilities, both by refusing to properly deliberate and by simply handing the task of governing over to staff and unelected bureaucrats.
Arthur A. Ekirch, Jr., The Decline of American Liberalism (1955, rpt. 2008)
Robert Higgs, Against Leviathan: Government Power and a Free Society (2004)
This is a shrewd critique of our modern congressional government. I would like to add that we now have the spectacle of Emperor Barack attempting to short-hop the cabinet and departments by appointing his “czars” for everything under the sun. Congress has abdicated by surrendering to the bureaucracy while now the bureaucracy is surrendering and ceding power to Obama’s men. When the Humpty Dumpty of constitutional government finally falls, all of Obama’s men won’t be able to put it together again!
Brian E. Birdnow | Jul 12, 2009 | Reply
This is the classic path outlined in Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom, Chapter 5, “Democracy and Planning”.
Unruhg | Jul 13, 2009 | Reply
I was reminded of the chapter in The Road to Serfdom, entitled “Why the Worst Get on Top.”
Jonathan Bean | Jul 13, 2009 | Reply
This legislation is being proposed by the Downsize DC Foundation. I’m a member and you should be too. Here’s the info about this particular bill on their website.
David | Jul 14, 2009 | Reply
DownsizeDC is also working on a very interesting brief for the Supreme Court arguing that “Freedom of the Press” is an individual, not just an institutional right, that current campaign finance laws infringe on this right, and that this will lead to encroachments on institutional First Amendment rights as well.
Frank Lee | Jul 14, 2009 | Reply
This is a stupid idea. Members of Congress should no more be forced to read the bills they pass than votes should be forced to read the bills their Congressmen vote for. After all, the logic is the same, right? How could a voter be truly “informed” about who they are voting for unless they read all the laws their Congressman voted for (and against!)? Stupid.
People are capable of making informed, intelligent choices about documents they haven’t read all the time.
Do you read and understand the chemical formulas for the pharmaceuticals you take before you ingest them? Do you refuse to fly on a plane or rent a car until after you have read and understood all the disclaimers you sign? Did you refuse to use your refrigerator until you’d read the engineering drawings to understand how it works? Have you personally inspected the drive-train of your car to make sure it is safe to drive? If so you are an idiot.
Every Congressman has a million-dollar budget to hire expert staff to read the bills for them and identify what the important parts are. That’s how normal, intelligent people handle complex interactions. If my congressman said he intended to read all the bills he was asked to vote on, I’d vote him out of office, because he’d be an idiot.
Not kidding | Aug 12, 2009 | Reply
The examples you give are off point.
EXAMPLE: The pharmaceutical companies hire technical experts to develop those formulas and competition give us a choice.
LAW: congressional staff don’t include broad enough technical expertise to match the example given and once the law is passed . . . you have no choice.
EXAMPLE: Do I read everything, blah, blah? Do I understand the formulas? No, but it’s my body, my choice and I face the consequences of not informing myself to my best ability. I’m not forcing my decisions on other people.
What is the consequence to a congressman/woman? Oh, wait: NOTHING. Sovereign immunity, 2% chance of being voted out of office and forced into a higher paying job on the other side of the revolving door.
At any rate, this is “government” by whom?
Jonathan Bean | Aug 13, 2009 | Reply
EXAMPLE: The pharmaceutical companies hire technical experts to develop those formulas and competition give us a choice.
LAW: congressional staff don’t include broad enough technical expertise to match the example given and once the law is passed . . . you have no choice.
EXAMPLE: Do I read everything, blah, blah? Do I understand the formulas? No, but it’s my body, my choice and I face the consequences of not informing myself to my best ability. I’m not forcing my decisions on other people.
What is the consequence to a congressman/woman? Oh, wait: NOTHING. Sovereign immunity, 2% chance of being voted out of office and forced into a higher paying job on the other side of the revolving door.
At any rate, this is “government” by whom?*
*I’ve researched many congressional papers — including committee papers — and then interviewed former legislative staff. Guess what? A lot of the work is delegated (the operative word) to the chair or the one or two people who happen to take an interest in their assignment. This truism goes way back. THEN after passing the law there is always another grand delegation of powers to the executive agency in question to actually write up the details. The days of the Supreme Court ruling such delegation of power unconstitutional (Schechter, 1935) are over. So it’s not just that they don’t read the bill but they also delegate so much power — in almost every bill — to the executive agency. Who knows what you get after that sausage is made. At any rate, who are those people? Did you elect them? So it is much worse than I painted in my original post.
Jonathan Bean | Aug 13, 2009 | Reply