The most amusing aspect of the Great Jeffords Defection is that it smashes to smithereens one of the main reasons why so many conservatives held their noses and voted for Dubya last November.
He might not really be one of us, many told me, but the next president is likely to appoint several Supreme Court justices and stock the rest of the federal judiciary with appointees who are, if not ideological soulmates, at least not enemies. I would remind them that Thomas Penfield Jackson, the biased, ignorant, blithering idiot who presided over the Microsoft case, was a Reagan appointee but still agreed that Republican appointees would probably be marginally less obnoxious on some issues ? though hardly on all ? than Democratic judges.
Forget all that now. Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, the likely new chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has already bottled up the nomination of Theodore Olsen as Solicitor General, who isn’t even appointed for life ? along with every other Justice Department appointment beyond the attorney general himself (who faced fierce and unfair opposition and is hardly a prize to a lover of liberty).
Leahy is a shrewd partisan who has been itching for a confrontation over judicial nominees. He is likely to do all in his power to make the Federalist Society the political equivalent of the Ku Klux Klan, and most of the media will cooperate in the effort. The Federalist Society is hardly a bunch of fire-breathers ? I’ve attended a number of conferences as an observer ? and he ultimately won’t succeed in total demonization. But any judicial nominee who has even uttered the words Federalist Society inadvertently in his sleep will get, as they say in the biz, heightened scrutiny. Look for people with no paper trail, like ? shudder! ? Souter to be prized.
Other than the effect on judicial nominees ? and real conservatives, let alone anybody who actually prized the kind of limited government the founders envisioned were never going to have an easy time of it in a 50-50 Senate anyway ? the Jeffords defection is hardly the earth-shattering, all-consuming development the Beltway crowd is so breathlessly insisting it is. One must confess, however, that it is significant. For the first time since senators have been popularly elected, party control of the U.S. Senate has been changed by a mechanism other than an election.
But Dubya has already delivered the most significant benefit his administration was likely to deliver ? and one I must confess I didn’t think he would be able to deliver back during the campaign ? the tax cut. The partisan control of the Senate will change, of course, but the same 100 people who voted 62 to 38 to cut taxes by $1.35 trillion over the next 11 years will still be in the Senate this week and next week (barring some new surprise or tragedy).
A year ago, every Democrat available for a sound bite was unalterably opposed to such a “risky scheme.” On Wednesday, 12 Senate Democrats voted for it and the rest accepted it as inevitable. I’m not sure whether that’s because of Dubya’s skill or because ? no matter how the pollsters and pundits try to deny it or shade the issue ? tax cuts are still always popular with most Americans. But, whatever the reason, I am more pleased than I expected to be with what this administration has accomplished.
It was never likely, however, that George W. Bush would get much more than a modest tax cut and a compromise education package passed this year. The tax cut has been passed. The education package had already been compromised so much ? long before party control of the Senate was in play ? that few conservatives felt enthusiastic about it. Its main feature is one of the worst ideas conservative education gurus have developed lately ? federally mandated, standardized tests for the prisoners of the government school system, which will increase rather than decrease central control and influence. More victories like this we can do without.
The Social Security commission has already been named, another pleasantly surprising development. Its recommendations will face tougher sledding in a Democrat-controlled Senate than before, but nobody expected the current Congress to implement its recommendations anyway. It’s less clear than ever whether the president will face a decision about signing legislation labeled campaign-finance reform, health-care reform or a patients’ bill of rights. The temptation, once Senate Democrats start reveling in the heady feeling of being back in real power, will be to push for proposals that verge on the ludicrous ? which the House won’t approve.
In terms of the broad agenda, then, putting the Senate under control of Tom Daschle and the Democrats might make little difference to the Bush administration. It might even push the president to use the presidential bully pulpit more effectively to improve Republican chances in 2002.
For better or worse ? and I’ve made it pretty clear over the years that I consider most of the consequences unfortunate ? control of the White House is the most important factor in modern American politics. Ronald Reagan managed an effective presidency overall with one or both legislative bodies in the hands of the opposing party at various times. Bill Clinton avoided impeachment and any semblance of accountability with both houses in the hands of Republicans. If he had handled things differently ? if he had viewed congressional Republicans as a target of opportunity for peeling away a few supporters rather than as the eternal target in the permanent political campaign ? he might well have gotten more legislation passed.
There is little question that the task of dealing with a Democratic Senate will be more difficult for the Bush administration. But aside from a few key chairmanships, the striking thing is how little might change in terms of policy emphases.
Fritz Hollings will bring a protectionist tint to the Commerce Committee, but will he really be all that much worse than John McCain? He might even torpedo campaign finance “reform,” which might not be a bad trade-off. James Jeffords at Environment will be more hostile to energy exploration and friendly to regulation than Republican Bob Smith of New Hampshire, although a number of Republicans had already begun to complain that Smith was engaged in an odd and almost inexplicable process of giving the greens most of what they want.
At Banking, the generally regulatory-friendly Paul Sarbanes of Maryland will be noticeably worse than Phil Gramm, the inconsistent, occasional free marketeer. At Energy, New Mexico’s Jeff Bingaman will be notably more hostile to exploration than Alaska’s Frank Murkowski. At Finance, Max Baucus will be worse than Chuck Grassley.
As for other committees, how much is there to choose at Agriculture between Lugar and Harkin? At Appropriations, Republican Ted Stevens is the only other Senator who challenges Robert Byrd in enthusiasm for pork. John Warner and Carl Levin at Armed Services strike me as something of a wash ? neither will consider the kind of reform I’d like to see. At Budget, Kent Conrad might be a bit worse than Pete Domenici, but it will hardly be a case of an enthusiastic budget-cutter being replaced. Joseph Lieberman will be insufferable as usual at Governmental Affairs, but Fred Thompson was hardly a prize. Ted Kennedy will replace Jeffords at Health, Education and Labor ? the differences will be only stylistic.
The shape of hearings and the issues brought to the fore will change, but the overall composition of the Senate remains the same. Different issues may be emphasized and some really awful proposals might actually get through committee. But nothing radically leftist is likely to pass the Senate, just as nothing especially rightist was likely to pass when the Republicans were in nominal control.
The myth of bipartisan comity will take some hits ? although the two major parties will remain two branches of the Government Party, locked in an ongoing conspiracy to defraud the American people. Senate Democrats might have to pretend to have an agenda rather than being merely obstructionist. But we have had divided government before. For the most part, gridlock in Washington is, if anything, better for the American people than energetic, effective government.
All in all, Jim Jeffords’ decision to go where he should have always been more comfortable anyway, doesn’t look like the disaster (or the potential Nirvana) some descry. If anything, it might clarify matters somewhat, perhaps even pushing Republicans to put forward more limited-government proposals than they would have when they were in the majority and had to act responsible ? as the permanent government defines responsibility.
All this leaves Mr. Jeffords’ decision still something of a mystery, though I might be the last person to claim to understand the motivations of those who seek and gain election to what Mark Twain called the only natural criminal class in America. The Republican Party has been an essentially conservative party for his entire political career ? it is not notably more conservative now than it has been in the past, and it has been more conservative during a few episodes.
Can it be that matters so petty as not being invited to a Teacher of the Year ceremony at the White House played a role? It seems more likely that rumors passed along anonymously to the Weekly Standard that the White House planned a campaign to punish Jeffords for his apostasy was a factor. John Fund suggests that he figured Strom Thurmond wouldn’t make it to the end of his term so he would join the ultimate majority early.
Whatever the reason, he has contributed to the sense that politics ? as played in the Imperial City ? is an absurd, petty and vindictive game that has little to do with any pretense of concern for the public weal. He has probably contributed to a more apparent gridlock than before and unleashed new rounds of partisan vindictiveness.
If these contributions lead to more Americans deciding more consciously that politicians are a band of scoundrels whose only value is a low form of entertainment ? and that the country will be better off the less control over the rest of us these pompous clowns exert ? Jim Jeffords may have done his country a favor. It won’t be the favor he thought he was doing, but it could be a favor of more value and magnitude than his politically-constrained little brain could even conceive.
