Three ways to restore Supreme Court balance without ‘packing’

 

Gordon L. Weil

Note to readers.  Posts on this site are also available by email from Substack.  Just enter "Weil's Notes from a Corner of the Country" on substack.com  and you will be able to sign up for regular emails.

“It ain’t broke, so don’t fix it.”

That version of the old saying is what most Republicans and some Democrats think about the Supreme Court and the proposal to increase the number of justices on the Court.

Most Democrats in Congress believe it is broken and that former GOP Senate Leader Mitch McConnell did it.  He led the Republicans to block many of President Obama’s federal court nominees plus changing the rules to ease confirmation of President Trump’s Supreme Court and other judicial choices.

They charge that McConnell packed the Supreme Court with conservatives and now is the time to rebalance it with their own packing. Congress has the power to add new justices to reduce the influence of the relatively young conservative newcomers who may enjoy decades on the bench.

In 1937, Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt was faced with a majority of conservative holdovers who sometimes thwarted his recovery moves.  After his stunning re-election victory in 1936, he proposed adding more justices.  The Court majority then shifted, making packing unnecessary.  “A switch in time that saved nine” was the quip of the day.

Roosevelt’s proposal had met some opposition, and he ignored history. John Marshall, perhaps the most influential Supreme Court justice ever, was a Federalist holdover for decades after his party fell into oblivion.  But presidents of the party in power did not propose Court packing.

The problem today is that the Court needs to be fixed.  Unlike the Marshall or Roosevelt situations, the Court majority was not the result of the natural course of history. It is the result of the obvious finagling by an excessively partisan McConnell.

President Biden is naming a commission to suggest a fix. Adding justices is a possibility, but the obvious concern is that increasing the size of the Court could be proposed after every presidential election.  Besides, Congress probably wouldn’t approve an increase.

The current Court, with six conservatives and three liberals, is likely to continue unchanged.  Justice Stephen Breyer, a liberal, is being urged to retire so Biden can appoint his replacement.  Otherwise, as when Justice Ginsburg died with Trump in office, a liberal might later be replaced by a conservative.

Even though the current balance cannot readily be altered, reasonable changes may be possible. They could reduce the threat of partisan wars spreading further into the Court.

The first reform could come in the Supreme Court itself.  In many decisions, it must interpret the law and settle on just what Congress intended.  Conservatives can decide what liberals meant.   That’s really legislating when it determines how the law will be applied and rules out other approaches.

Why do that?  Congress is just across the street and open for business.  The Court could decide on its interpretation of congressional intent, but delay the effective date of its decision for six months. During that period, Congress would be on formal notice either to amend the law, resolving the issue, or to do nothing and let the decision stand.

In that way, decisions might be taken from the hands of an unelected holdover Court and given to a current Congress.  Under the Constitution, Congress itself has the power to control the Court’s jurisdiction, so it might itself be able to adopt this requirement.

Another reform, this time in Senate rules, could prevent McConnell-type moves. Judicial nominations could be required to allow for a minimum of 60 days review, including committee hearings and investigation of nominees, with a decision by the full Senate after no less than 90 days.

Because federal judges receive lifetime appointments, they deserve careful review before taking office.  Senate confirmation may be as much about their proven competence to make decisions often affecting all Americans as their political philosophy

Finally, as previously suggested in this column, the president and Congress could agree on making temporary appointments to the Supreme Court, just has always been done for lower federal courts.

A new slot on the Court would be created and filled by the usual lifetime appointee.  The Court would be enlarged only until one of the original justices ended their service.  At that point, the temporary slot would disappear and the justice in the temporary position would take the permanent seat.

With both Congress and the presidency now under Democratic control, this might be a more acceptable approach for skeptical Democratic senators, such as West Virginia’s Joe Manchin and Arizona’s Krysten Sinema, than is enlarging the Court.   It could set a precedent for a time when there is a split in control between the Senate and the White House.

To his credit, Chief Justice John Roberts seems intent on keeping the Supreme Court from being reduced to a partisan forum.  That is a worthy goal, and the Court, Congress and Biden’s commission need to take that same long view and protect the Court’s independence.

 

 

 

History becomes a weapon; partisans pit “cancel culture” against “politically correct”

 

Gordon L. Weil

 “That’s all she wrote.”

In explaining this familiar American sentence, a British authority wrote that it means, “it's all over; there's no more to be said.”

That’s what we used to think about history.  You found out what happened and wrote a big book about it.

While that belief was never true, it is now strongly rejected.  These days people take a new look at history in an effort to realign the past with present opinions.

It can result in misjudging historical leaders.  New research and experience may help us understand what they did and why.  But we might also measure them using standards likely to have been unknown to them.  Or we may resist any new historic understanding and continue to glorify the past.

The most obvious case of taking a new look may be the elimination of the Confederate flag on  state banners and the removal of statues of rebel leaders. They have been memorials to an armed attempt to preserve slavery and destroy the Union.  Venerating them amounts to keeping the rebellion going.

While eliminating the symbols of an unjust and inhumane cause is reasonable and necessary, it leads to confrontation between those defending the symbols, supposedly because they are part of history and those opposing them in light of a reinforced awareness of their lingering effect. As a result, they become elements of today’s political clash.

At the time that slavery was acknowledged in the Constitution, most drafters knew it was wrong.  But they regarded it as necessary to ensure the participation of southern states, which believed it essential to their economies. It lasted until the Civil War and, in practice, a century more.

Even at the outset, one general saw it differently and upon his death, his slaves were freed.  Six decades later, another general led his state’s soldiers in rebellion against his own country to preserve slavery.  Both were Virginians and both are respected. Washington and Lee University recognizes them. Only one deserves a statue.

Taking a new look at Robert E. Lee to deflate his high reputation may be seen as “cancel culture” by those who believe he should be honored for being committed to a worthy cause and a classy loser. 

Giving new consideration to the historic role of leaders makes sense, provided today’s analysis takes into account human understanding and sensitivity as it existed at the time.  To reject such analysis, which some dismiss as “cancel culture,” is dangerously simplistic. 

The term “cancel culture” is not just about fighting to preserve history. It is a rallying call for those people who support discredited movements or events and amounts to barely disguised support for lost causes.  Its advocates misleadingly dismiss their critics as merely being “politically correct.”

On the other side, those who simply condemn historic figures based on their own current views also misuse history. They resort to shortcuts that are meant to appeal to their audience.

The heated debate is selective, based more on today’s politics than on a broad, new look at accepted history. The cases pulled out for new consideration or subjected to claims of “cancel culture,” are more likely to legitimize the current political needs of their partisans rather than being part of an academic effort to reappraise past scholarship.

Today, some people may be shunned as objects of “cancel culture” because of their past statements or writings. If they persisted, shouldn’t they be rejected?  If they repented, do they deserve still to be rejected?   (Still revered, Lee never repented.)

Recently, the head of Planned Parenthood wrote one of the most balanced views of a troublesome history during these times of “cancel culture.”

Margaret Sanger was a nurse who opened the first clinic dedicated to birth control in an effort to promote it as a way to improve women’s lives.  She founded Planned Parenthood and gained a widely, but not totally, favorable reputation.

Beyond women’s health concerns, she saw birth control as a way of limiting the growth of the Black population and associated with white supremacist groups.  She also supported a Supreme Court decision allowing the involuntary sterilization of “unfit” people and testing a birth control pill on unsuspecting Puerto Ricans.

“Sanger remains an influential part of our history and will not be erased, but as we tell the history of Planned Parenthood’s founding, we must fully take responsibility for the harm that Sanger caused,” Alexis McGill Johnson, the organization’s president, wrote.

If the furor over “cancel culture” has brought more attention to understanding our history, including Sanger’s conflicted role, it may be useful.  Debating the past educates us, and that’s needed, because schools pay too little attention to American history and civics.

Frequently, leaders hail the shared “values” that supposedly unite all Americans, but then skip the sometimes clashing specifics of how they played out in history. 

That failure leaves people ignorant of history and vulnerable to political exploitation.  It allows “cancel culture” to flourish and history to be used as a weapon.

 

More federal debt without new taxes means big tax hike later

 

Gordon L. Weil

How are we going to pay for all this?

In March, the monthly gap between federal spending and revenues was the third largest in U.S. history.

Whether Donald Trump or Joe Biden is president, federal spending keeps climbed. But raising the money to pay for it has been lacking.  Even worse, under Trump spending increased and taxes were cut.

Congress had made a deal that, aside from fixed benefits, military and non-military expense would be kept about equal. That deal was broken by Trump, who boosted military spending with GOP support.  He also paid billions to compensate farmers for the negative effects of his trade policy.

Biden has proposed about $2 trillion in infrastructure spending. Last week he released his proposed budget that would boost federal spending to move toward restoring the budget deal without military cuts. Both he and Trump spent without restraint to combat Covid-19, the main cause of the March deficit.

The U.S. is now using the word “trillion” routinely.  The old saying, attributed to several political sources, was “a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon it begins to add up to real money.”  “Pretty soon” billion will be replaced by “trillion.” 

The problem is paying for it all.

The Federal Reserve can create money.  When the coronavirus hit, it did just that to pump funds into a faltering economy and staved off a recession.  But that kind of support is temporary and is really only a loan.

There is only one ultimate answer. The people who pay the taxes will have to pay the bill.

Are taxes already too high? 

The political mantra is that the government is taking too much of your “hard-earned money.”  Taxation is undesirable and reduces your ability to decide how to spend your own money.  The mantra is mistaken.

Only about 57 percent of households pay any federal income tax. The rest of the households, mostly the poor and part of the middle class, have no income tax liability. A small percentage of the wealthiest households also pay no income tax.

The amount of money the government will recover in taxes is partly determined by what Congress decides upon as the activities and actions it wants to support.  So tax revenues buy things decided by the representatives of the taxpayers.  Those decisions are easier and more politically popular than paying for them.

Beyond income taxes, the government levies a payroll tax, and almost everybody who works pays it.  These taxes supposedly pay for guaranteed programs like Social Security. They don’t.  An individual’s payroll tax usually doesn’t cover more than a fraction of the benefits the worker will receive in retirement.  Today’s workers pay for retirees.

Because the federal government runs up a budget deficit almost every year and payroll taxes don’t cover benefit commitments, it looks like taxes are too low.

Biden proposes to raise taxes on the most wealthy households and on corporations.  If he gets his way, the new tax rates will still be lower than under President Obama.  In other words, much of the Trump tax cuts will survive.

But corporations and some wealthy individuals complain that if they pay more taxes, they will invest less in the economy, creating fewer jobs.  It may seem logical that raising taxes could have a negative effect on the economy, but there’s no proof.  In fact, much government spending finds its way into the private sector, stimulating the economy.

There’s one way to increase tax revenues without a tax increase. Give the IRS the funds for enforcement.  The IRS commissioner just reported that the government could be losing as much as $1 trillion a year to cheaters. Cutting big government has meant slashing the IRS budget.  Biden wants a 10 percent increase.

If we want better roads and more warships but dislike taxes, how do we pay for them?  The federal government borrows and debt increases.  Don’t worry about that, say succeeding presidents.

The economy will keep growing, especially without heavy taxes, and that will produce more tax revenues that can be used in the future to pay off the debt.  The annual projection about future tax revenue is one of the greatest exercises in artificial optimism.  Great days are always coming.

To that hope we have joined the belief that interest rates are now so low that future payments won’t be burdensome.  Add low interest rates to a booming economy and more debt is no problem. 

That theory leads to tax cuts. If lower taxes help the economy, we should cut them even more. That worked once, under President Kennedy, and became an almost sacred belief.  It never again worked.  The national debt keeps growing, partly because increased revenue is spent, not used to pay off debt.

Add to that the fact that states cannot increase their debt without paying for it.  So they lean on Washington for funds, because the federal government has no such rule.  They transfer much of the high tax responsibility to Washington and, hopefully, taxpayers elsewhere.

There will always be new demands on government, so for the sake of future generations debt should be kept under some control. Otherwise, making debt service payments will inevitably require high taxes and crimp the budget. That would harm the economy.

The Washington debate focuses on limiting taxes as the way to choke the growth of big government.  It ought to focus on just what we want from government and then decide if and how we pay for it.

 

 

 

 

 

Biden seeks major spending to build “infrastructure,” but what is it?

Gordon L. Weil

It’s not a new “New Deal.”   It’s not even “big government.”

But President Biden is trying to do something big with his infrastructure plan.   Congressional Republicans oppose the scope of those plans.

What does “infrastructure” mean?  Originally a French word, it translates as “substructure.”  Does that mean only the most basic supports of the national economy, as the Republicans argue, or many underlying elements that contribute to economic strength, as Biden sees it?

Trump floated a $1 trillion infrastructure investment proposal. It would have needed more revenues from taxes or debt.  The GOP wasn’t in favor and the private sector did not come up with the cash. Nothing happened.

Roads and bridges have to be repaired.  Everybody agrees, making it difficult to argue against an infrastructure plan. The GOP wants it narrowly focused.  It’s almost as though if it isn’t made out of cement, it isn’t infrastructure.

Keep it a small bill, they say, to limit the necessary small tax increase and limited growth in the national debt.  Now that Trump, who liked debt, is gone, the Republicans have become deficit hawks. By spending less, they want to choke “big government.”

The 1930’s New Deal was big government, because the federal government itself created jobs and hired people.  It created and runs Social Security. Biden’s proposal would mostly send money to the private sector, just as did President Obama’s stimulus.  That’s public investment not big government.

The GOP may concede that Biden’s election victory entitles him to some action on infrastructure, but he must accept their version. That’s a Republican compromise. He suggests that if he gains support from average Republicans, that will be proof of compromise. And he must make some concessions to moderate Democrats who share some of the GOP’s restraint.

Biden promises to seek “good faith negotiations” with the Republicans. He would if he could, but he can’t. 

Former GOP House Speaker John Boehner now explains why the dominant, right-wing Republicans spurn compromise.  He wrote, “These guys wanted 100 percent every time. In fact, I don’t think that would satisfy them, because they didn’t really want legislative victories. They wanted wedge issues and conspiracies and crusades.”

In Maine, something like that happened with this year’s supplemental budget.  Gov. Janet Mills gave GOP legislators 99 percent of what they wanted on business taxes, but they demanded 100 percent. When she gave them that, they demanded even more.

In short, politics is not about shared responsibility for governing the country, but a struggle between the Democrats, who make proposals, and the anti-Democrats who oppose them, good or bad.  

Republicans attack Biden’s big plan, but only propose severely trimming it without promising to vote for the reduced version. There is no GOP counterproposal.

If both sides were serious about compromise, they could successfully negotiate a deal. The Republicans would have to accept more spending and the Democrats less. Because the Democrats control the government, they should get more out of the deal than would the Republicans.

But that won’t happen.  Boehner found that the GOP right wing does not want to legislate; it wants to agitate.  Also, Biden can’t let the Republicans use compromise talks to delay action, giving them time to promote opposition to his bill.

Biden probably believes that the infrastructure bill plus the stimulus bill passed recently and planned health care reform legislation are the cornerstones of his presidency. With these bills, he can achieve most of what he set out to do. And his best chance for success comes now in the first year of his presidency.

He was an adept legislator, so he knows he must make some concessions to moderate Democrats and at least talk with Republicans.  His bill contains some spending on the progressive agenda to keep all Democrats on board, but he undoubtedly knew from the outset that he would have to drop parts of his proposal.

Yet some of his innovative items could prove popular with Republicans across the country.  For example, his proposed broadband expansion could bring real benefit to Maine’s rural areas, traditional Republican strongholds. 

The GOP leaders lined up for broadband, but Republicans oppose clean energy proposals and even fixing 100-year-old water systems.

The Republicans can block Biden from getting the 60 Senate votes to end debate on his bill.  One solution might be for the Democrats to eliminate the filibuster.  But Biden might not get swing Democrats to agree.

The more likely solution is budget “reconciliation.”  A simple majority can decide on spending and taxes under this procedure, used by both parties. Biden’s bill was drafted to permit it, and the Senate parliamentarian has issued a preliminary ruling allowing it.

Biden pits Republican governors and mayors, who could benefit from the bill, against the congressional GOP, largely still loyal to Trump.  The Democrats could not only pass the bill, but gain from the split.

This scenario reveals that the 2022 congressional election campaign has begun. 

Trump faces increasing legal pressure, even after Senate’s failure to convict him

Gordon L. Weil

If at first you don’t succeed, try again. 

If Trump’s critics couldn’t win in Congress, they want the courts to bring him to justice.  The legal complaints keep rolling in.

Trump’s serious problems began when Special Counsel Robert Mueller, a Republican, found ten “episodes” of his potential obstruction of justice. While Mueller found no direct link between the Trump campaign and Russian meddling on his behalf, he reported that Trump had tried to interfere with his investigation.

But Mueller could go no further, blocked by a Department of Justice opinion that a sitting president could not be forced to face criminal charges. 

Freed from any penalty from the Mueller investigation, Trump tried to get the Ukraine president to investigate the alleged involvement of Biden’s son in a potentially corrupt company there.  He added pressure for such help by delaying promised financial aid for Ukraine’s resistance to Russia’s invasion.

House Democrats impeached Trump for his Ukraine move, though they skipped over any charges that might have come from Mueller’s obstruction of justice findings.  Only one Republican senator, Mitt Romney, voted to convict, and the effort to remove Trump from office failed to gain the Senate’s required two-thirds vote.

Next, House Democrats joined by 10 Republicans impeached Trump for inciting the January 6 Capitol insurrection aimed at getting Congress to overturn his election defeat.  

While GOP senators denounced Trump’s actions, they refused to convict him because he was no longer in office.  The same Justice Department opinion that had blocked Mueller clearly stated that an impeached federal official could be convicted after leaving office. A Senate majority voted to support that view.

Most Republican senators refused to honor that decision.  Seven Republicans, including Susan Collins, did accept it and voted to convict Trump, but the effort again failed.

The impeachment process is political. Conviction depends on the offense being so outrageous that members of the president’s own party will vote against him.  The second Senate trial vote revealed that convicting a president is probably impossible.

When the Senate’s unwillingness to act is coupled with protection from criminal charges while in office, a president likely enjoys complete immunity.

An ex-president might face a criminal trial, but the only punitive action is likely to be the verdict of history.  Trump’s record-setting two impeachments may be his main legacy.

But that outcome is not enough for his opponents and victims. Having failed to convict him when Trump was president, they continue to hope for him to be found guilty of a major offense. Such a decision might be seen as their vindication, because it would be judicial not political.

Democrats had intended that conviction in the second impeachment trial would lead to Trump being banned from ever again holding federal office.  That’s why the Senate trial began even after his term had ended.

Being found guilty in court now could serve the same purpose. He might be sufficiently discredited that his chances at election or perhaps even the GOP nomination would be undercut.   Much would depend on the reaction of traditional Republicans plus independents.

His partisans may believe that losing in court might not stop him. The party keeps working to suppress the Democratic vote in swing states so that he could win again with a smaller GOP turnout. 

Many federal cases have been brought against Trump, mostly by professional prosecutors not political figures. There’s a slim chance he could be tried for his January 6 actions.  Recently, two Capitol police officers injured by the mob sued Trump.

Though Biden should keep hands off, he might prefer the Justice Department not pursue him out of concern that they could appear overly political, especially in light of Trump’s investigation of his son, which the president has not halted.

Beyond the federal cases, Trump remains vulnerable. The ex-president is the subject of state investigations that are completely independent of the federal Justice Department.  Other cases in which he is not directly involved could also produce negative results for him.

Both the New York State Attorney-General and the Manhattan District Attorney are investigating his possible tax evasion and if he lied to obtain business loans.   Georgia is investigating his attempts to influence the presidential vote count through direct contacts with its election officials. Conviction in these cases, if they get to court, could be politically damaging.

Among the most serious cases are complaints brought by two companies against some Trump lawyers and his Fox News allies.  Trump endorsed their claims that the companies operated voting machines replacing Trump votes with Biden votes. There is no such evidence, and the companies say their businesses have suffered because of the claims.

If the companies win, the results will further discredit Trump’s false assertion that he won the election, his supporters’ justification for the Capitol insurrection.  That could harm his political prospects.

The campaign battles between Trump and his opponents continue. No longer is it only a matter of politics.  In the end, the courts may have as much to say about Trump’s presidency and his future as did the voters last November.

  

Biden seeks big success quickly; three presidential models

 

Gordon L. Weil

Joe Biden is a president in a hurry.

Conventional wisdom says that President Joe Biden is unusually well versed in Washington’s ways, ready to govern without delay thanks to his long career in the Senate and as Vice President.

Perhaps even more importantly, his presidency may be influenced by three earlier chief executives – Franklin D. Roosevelt, who launched historic policies right after he took office, Barack Obama, with whom Biden served as Vice President, and James K. Polk, highly rated by historians but almost forgotten.

Roosevelt became president in 1933 in the midst of the nation’s worst ever economic crisis – the Great Depression.  Biden became president in the midst of the nation’s worst ever health crisis – the deadly coronavirus.

Roosevelt quickly led a Democratic Congress to adopt his bold proposals.  He brought about emergency relief, civilian work programs including immediate summer jobs, aid to agriculture, public works and the Tennessee Valley Authority.

He accomplished all this during what he soon labeled “the first 100 days.” Though this fast start was copied by later presidents, the range of achievements of Roosevelt’s “100 days” has never been equaled.

Biden set a goal of 100 million Americans vaccinated in his first 100 days, and the country reached that point even sooner.  He also insisted that immediate government spending was essential to restart the economy and help the jobless. A Democratic Congress voted $1.9 trillion with an unusually heavy focus on the poor.

Both Roosevelt and Biden faced a federal government mired in inaction when they took office. The Republicans thought the Depression would cure itself.  This year, the Trump administration, having successfully promoted vaccine development, left no plans for distribution.

Biden also learned from his experience with Obama, who had taken two major steps early in his administration.  To deal with the Great Recession that he found upon taking office, he got Congress to pass a major stimulus bill.  It worked, starting a gradual recovery that would last for a decade.

His greatest initiative was the Affordable Care Act, which would provide health insurance coverage for tens of millions of Americans.

Obama’s successes were undercut by what Biden saw as his “humility.”  The president refrained from taking credit for the stimulus, thinking such a claim would make his relationship with congressional Republicans even more difficult. Biden believes he could have accomplished more had he been more aggressive.

The Democrats, emphasizing local issues, left the 2010 national debate on the ACA almost entirely to the GOP.  The Republicans effectively campaigned nationally by attacking Obamacare.  Voters rejected many Democrats who had supported it.

In sharp contrast, Biden rejected GOP efforts to water down his economic stimulus, after they offered less than a third of what he saw as necessary without even committing to support the lower amount.  He immediately began campaigning nationally to support it, trying to protect congressional Democrats for their re-election races next year.

What makes Polk a model for Biden?

Polk is rated among the top presidents because he laid out an ambitious set of objectives and then accomplished them in a single term, in 1845-49. Some historians say he was the most successful president since Washington.

He brought about the annexation of Texas, through the controversial Mexican War, which he launched.  He also acquired massive new territory, ranging from New Mexico to California to the Pacific Northwest.  He established an independent Treasury, freeing it from dependence on outside banks.

Polk created the Department of the Interior, lowered tariffs in the belief America could compete, and strengthened the executive office of the president. His major drawback was his support for slavery, notably in Texas.

What made Polk special was that he accomplished his entire program in a single term as president.  He enjoyed a particularly good relationship with most of Congress though Abraham Lincoln, then a Whig Party representative from Illinois, strongly opposed him on the Mexican War. 

Biden almost certainly has a limited time to accomplish his goals.  His first priority has been to control Covid-19, mainly by the effective distribution of vaccines.  He is readying massive legislation on infrastructure, education, labor development, and climate change. He will also propose an immigration policy.

He wants to restore America’s standing in the world while resisting China and Russia. That means undertaking joint strategic action with friendly countries. 

Biden has limited time to achieve his goals, especially the domestic policies.  The Democrats narrowly control Congress until the end of 2022, just two years into his term.  Cooperation with Republicans seems impossible, so his success depends on early action with the support of loyal Democrats. 

Biden, the oldest president, is most likely to retire after only one term.  That allows him to focus on his policies not his next campaign or his image. Of course, he still needs public support, but more for what he does than who he is.

He understands that the GOP is in no mood to compromise, believing it can make a comeback next year.  He is picking up few GOP votes on most key issues. Unlike Obama, he won’t make one-sided concessions to them.

Biden recognizes that his broad agenda, like Polk’s, has a fleeting opportunity and depends on his maintaining momentum.  That makes for an unusual presidency.

 

 

 

 

 

Democratic dissenter opposes Pelosi, stimulus, gun checks, but leaves his motives unknown

 

Gordon L. Weil

President Biden’s coronavirus economic stimulus bill passed Congress on a straight party vote. Almost.

All of the Republicans in the House and Senate voted against it.  All of the Democrats voted for it, except one.  That was Jared Golden, the member of Congress from Maine’s Second District. His vote raises the historical question of the role of a legislator.

Golden said that he opposed the bill because it contained items that had little or nothing to do with economic recovery, the bill’s avowed purpose, but were elements of the Democratic Party’s broader legislative agenda. As a result, it cost too much. That was his personal conviction.

He may have been correct in his judgment, even though it pitted him against his party’s president and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.  But he had also voted against her for the top position in House, instead casting a meaningless vote for another Democrat.

Still, that vote helped the Democrats, who hold only a narrow majority in the House. It contributed to the majority allowing them to set the House agenda and control the chamber’s affairs. In effect, whatever his position, he enabled other Democrats.

Why does a member like Golden oppose a central policy of the Democratic president?   There are what might be called the “three Cs” to explain how a legislator votes.  It could be out of personal conviction, which is what any dissenter will claim. Or it could be to vote the will of their constituency. Or it might be conformity to the party position.

All three reasons have deep roots.  British parliamentarian Edmund Burke famously proclaimed that he was elected, not to represent the people of Bristol, but to use his judgment in the national interest. Conviction.

Almost any member of Congress says they represent their state or district not the nation. Democrat Thomas “Tip” O’Neill, a famous House Speaker, once said, “All politics is local.” Golden was the only Democrat to vote against expanded background checks for gun owners.  Was that to please his district? Constituency.

A party outlier may join in supporting that party’s positions once in office. New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a progressive who toppled a Democratic House leader on her way to office, now frequently adopts the party position, though, unlike Golden, she keeps trying to move it to the left.  Conformity.

That raises the fourth C, the consequences of opposing your party.

Golden is taking a difficult and even dangerous course. Criticizing Democrats who voted with Republicans, President Harry Truman said, “The people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat.”

Legislators acting out of conviction have a slim chance of gaining standing as a maverick, as did Arizona GOP Sen. John McCain. Though he often voted with his party, on some major issues he took an independent position. Nationally renowned as a war hero, he had broad support in his home state, thanks to Trump’s attacks on him for his independence.

As Truman suggested, an independent legislator could lose. Collin Peterson was a Minnesota Democrat in a district that voted for Trump.  He supported most GOP positions and was popular, but was finally trounced by a Republican in 2020.

Or, they could become the genuine article.  Jeff Van Drew, a New Jersey Democrat in a Trump district, aligned often with the GOP and switched parties. He was re-elected as a Republican in 2020.

In 2018, 31 Democrats were elected in districts that Trump had carried in 2016.  In 2020, Van Drew switched, and only seven survived, including Golden.

The third option is tempering party loyalty with using your swing vote to influence policy.  West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, representing one of the most Republican states, obtained major changes to Biden’s stimulus bill, because his vote was essential to its passage.

Manchin, a former governor, has considered returning to that position. Could that be the office that Golden has in mind in opposing some Democratic policies?

German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck once made a remark later simplified as “Politics is the art of the possible.”  That could be the motto for party conformity allowing for just a touch of the maverick.

The final option is to regard holding public office as performing a public service, not as a career. A person contributes their knowledge and skills for a limited period, but recognizes that adherence to principle may not be the path to popularity.

Jeannette Rankin, a Montana Republican representative, served two widely separated terms, not seeking reelection either time, the second because of almost certain defeat resulting from her anti-war position. Though the first woman elected to Congress, her strong conviction overcame any ambition to hold her House seat.

The choice is up to Golden and the Second District, likely to become somewhat more Democratic after reapportionment.  Where is he coming from and where is he headed?