Today, Dennis Hastert may announce his resignation as Speaker. He may try to continue his run for office as IL-14 Rep, or he may step down.
Don't get me wrong, I have been calling for Hastert's resignation for a long time. His fiscal recklessness, refusal to do the job of Executive oversight and his disregard for our Constitution in favor of power at all costs have cost our nation dearly.
But amidst the week's events we must not forget that the reason the Foley scandal in Congress happened is because of the changes that have been made to the House of Representatives by Republicans, what Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann characterize a neoparliamentary system in the House of Representatives; something that won't simply go away if Dennis Hastert resigns (although it's a good start). To make a real positive change, they note, will require the sustained outrage of the public in calling for real reforms in how House business is done.
In
The Broken Branch, a book every citizen concerned with this scandal should be reading today, Mann and Ornstein show us that the Foley scandal was bound to happen, because of the way the Republican-led House currently runs:
[In 2000, the Republicans] all viewed their chances of policy success and its concomitant political success as flowing from the creation of a neoparliamentary system on the House side of the Capitol, something difficult to achieve under the best of circumstances in our constitutional system.
Winning at all costs consumed Republican leaders in Congress, which meant not merely shutting the minority Democrats out of the lawmaking process but also regularly marginalizing the views and roles of rank-and-file Republicans, moderates, and staunch conservatives alike in order to advance the president's program.
It led them to radically expand the use of earmarks so they might have chits to use to reward the compliant and punish the stubborn among them, while losing control over the federal purse strings for a large share of discretionary spending. It led to a regular process of inserting significant policy changes stealthily into omnibus bills and conference reports that would not likely pass if conducted by the usual, open process -- offending Republicans, as well as Democrats, when their handiwork was belatedly discovered. But for several years, the techniques worked well enough that Republicans were able to pass most of their party's legislative agenda, gain seats in successive elections, and help their president win reelection against the odds.
All of these things, culminating in the Foley scandal, are part of a seamless garment of Republican corruption flowing from a dysfunctional House. The creation of this neoparliamentary House, and the abuses it engenders, can be properly seen as Hastert's legacy. For
that, and not just the Foley scandal in the Congress, Hastert must resign.
But Democrats must be careful: if they win a majority in November, we the voters must focus on the real need: to reclaim our House and set it right. In a recent interview (before the Foley Congressional scandal hit) Ornstein noted:
Stories about congressional scandal or failure in the process have to be reported, prominently and regularly. One story and one editorial won't do it. Sustained outrage by the press is necessary to get sustained outrage from the public. We need something more. We need to get candidates who actually care about the process, who care about the institutions of government.
(emphasis mine)
There are Representatives and candidates, including people like David Obey and Louise Slaughter, who are genuinely dedicated to real reforms in the House. Candidates like
John Laesch, Hastert's opponent, have pledged their commitment to restoring the function of the House. But Ornstein notes that if Democrats do gain a majority in the House it's likely to be slim, slimmer even than the majority currently held by Republicans, and that means a "poisonous atmosphere" which will make it hard to get any real reform through, and tempting to ignore:
If Democrats take back the House, I do believe that there will be a strong push for reform from many members and some of the leaders. The question first is whether it can be packaged and passed quickly, with what will certainly be a slender majority; and second, whether any reform can be sustained and implemented once the real pressures of government with a margin in the low single digits take hold.
Our job, as voters and citizens, will be to sustain the outrage generated by this scandal to ensure
real reforms get through. A neoparliamentary House with a slim Democratic majority would be no better than one with a slim R majority. For the health of the first branch of government, and indeed for the health of our nation, we must push harder than ever to ensure that real reforms happen.