Republican lawmakers challenge government chief

 

Gordon L. Weil

Only two elements of the federal government seem capable of halting President Trump’s overreach in using his powers – the courts and at least some Republican members of the House and Senate who could join the Democrats in reclaiming congressional powers.  So far, it’s not the GOP, with one Republican senator admitting she’s afraid of Trump.

But there’s at least one clear case of GOP legislators pushing back against an executive effort not only to fire experienced personnel but to slash or abolish a government agency.  It happened in Oklahoma this month.

Governor Kevin Stitt is a Republican.  At the start of the current session, the House was composed of 80 Republicans and 20 Democrats.  The Senate was composed of 39 Republicans and 8 Democrats.  Stitt should be able to get backing for almost any action.

In mid-March, Oklahoma experienced major wildfires, which state and local firefighters struggled to extinguish.  The Oklahoma Forestry Service, the key state agency, had undergone staff cuts under Stitt and was limited in how far it could extend its resources. But the governor claimed that it had deployed only about half of its personnel on the peak day of the fires.

He promptly fired the head of the OFS, a highly respected person who had worked at the agency for 40 years.  The governor also cut other top managers.  He went even further, questioning the need for the agency and proposing almost fatal cuts to its budget.

In Trump’s Washington, the president could have gotten away with such moves.  But not in Oklahoma City.

The House Speaker and the Senate president pro tem both spoke against Stitt’s actions. They pledged to ensure that OFS funding would be locked in.  Their stance mattered because, even after Stitt implicitly admitted that the entire state force had been deployed, he did not back off. Only after public opinion swung to back the legislative leaders, he said OFS would survive.

Why could Oklahoma Republicans oppose their own governor, while the GOP in Congress acquiesces in Trump’s moves, even at the expense of their own constitutional powers?

With political support that cannot be attributed to Stitt’s endorsement, the Oklahoma members may feel more loyal to their constituencies than to their governor.  Local opinions mattered more than the demands of a governor placing his views ahead of the public interest. In relatively small districts, voters could get to know members, rather acceding to Stitt’s influence.

The split between the two branches of government went a step further.  The governor complained that the legislature had passed some bills sponsored by Democrats.  One-party rule, obviously possible, suited him.  So much for meeting public sentiments in favor of government cooperation.

House Speaker Kyle Hilbert responded to Stitt.  He noted that 20 percent of the House was Democratic, but only six percent of the bills passed had been sponsored by Democrats. 

Apart from the specific issues, the Oklahoma case reveals the survival of institutional checks and balances can take place even when one party completely dominates and that bipartisanship can happen even in a setting far more partisan than Washington.

 

[If you like this blog, please share it with others and recommend they read it regularly.]

Republican Right would bar compromise

Gordon L. Weil

It’s only a small issue, but it explains why talk about cooperation between the two parties is nothing more than a convenient myth, otherwise known as a lie.

The Maine House Republicans complain that the governor has “nominated a former Democrat state legislator” to be Public Advocate.  There it is: the persistent use by the GOP of the word “Democrat” when the correct word is “Democratic,” as in the official, legal name of the party.

The use of “Democrat” is meant as a slur, a way Republicans annoy Democratic legislators and to suggest that the traditional party has been replaced by an extreme liberal version.  The Democrats have not counterattacked with their own slur for the Republicans, though the traditional GOP has itself been replaced by Trump loyalists.

The almost total and persistent opposition to Democrats goes beyond the word.  The extreme right-wing Freedom Caucus in the House warned their support for Speaker Mike Johnson depends on his refusing to rely on Democratic support to pass bills.  Johnson’s version of bipartisanship occurs when the Democrats fall in line behind the GOP.

Susan Collins, Maine’s Republican senator, told a state university audience that she favors compromise over conflict. The result, she said, “would produce a very different legislative climate, one in which the objective is to solve the problem, not just to score political points.”  In her speech, she used the term “Democratic.”  That little “ic” may justify her moderate label.

But the Republican game, especially in Washington, is all about scoring political points.  If you score enough points, you win the game and can change the country. Standing in the way of GOP extremism might be a handful of loyal Republicans, including Collins, supporting good government over partisanship. That will take courage, which requires taking risks.

After a sound electoral victory and enjoying the first year of his term, Trump dominates.  He pressured Freedom Caucus members to support Johnson, allowing the peaceful January 6 electoral vote count.  But his political attacks replace the truth. Trump claimed the New Orleans slaughter resulted from illegal immigration, though the alleged killer was American-born.

The Republican extreme right is determined to play a massive blame game, attributing anything that goes wrong to the Democrats.  That is hardly the way to compromise, but guarantees conflict. 

The right can block decisions, if Johnson won’t allow any bills to pass that depend on Democratic support.   With a slim majority, the Speaker needs their votes to pass almost any bill with only GOP votes.

If the federal government has any chance for compromise, it’s up to the Democrats.  They need to stop agonizing over why they lost and try to respond to popular concerns.  Important as they may be, some social issues seem to be marginal compared with making government more responsive to public demands on spending and taxes.

The Democrats need to develop a platform containing an agreed agenda for government action.  It cannot offer something for everyone, and it must focus creatively on core issues like trade, Social Security reform, and immigration.

The party could start a platform development process now, involving the National Committee and people from across the country.  Presumably, the new party chair, who will not be the party’s visible leader, could manage this process.

The Democrats need a coherent and constructive agenda before the 2026 congressional elections.  They also need a leader. They cannot put off both decisions until the 2028 campaign.

The major financial backers of the Democratic Party could focus on potential standard bearers they would support.  While the ultimate choice is up to the party faithful, the Democrats’ menu could be prepared ahead of the 2028 primary wars. Meanwhile, they would have visible leaders with financial backing to speak for their platform.

The Democrats should be looking at issues on their own merits, reflecting the popular will, rather than simply opposing the Republicans.  That means they could support some Trump proposals.  If a GOP initiative could be improved, they should offer changes, but not lend their votes in return for political payoffs involving more spending.

Possibly the best way for Republicans to listen to Democratic ideas and for Democrats to make cooperation a reality would be to revive the tradition of an unofficial, bipartisan group of senators that would attempt to develop policies acceptable to a majority of each party in the Senate.  Four moderates from each party could do it.

If the Senate could agree on proposals backed by majorities in each party while the House produced distinctly partisan bills, another tradition could be revived.  Representatives of the two houses would meet in a conference committee where they might at least try to come up with a bill that could pass both houses.  The House could then be faced with accepting or rejecting the deal.