TIME: Almanac 1990/1990 Time Magazine Compact Almanac, The (1991)(Time).iso/time/022089/02208900.047

Text File | 1990-09-17 | 6KB | 111 lines

NATION, Page 37

Government by the Timid

By Walter Shapiro


    America has long believed in the theory that absolute job
security increases the odds of independence and moral courage.
College professors are granted tenure to ensure their right to
voice unpopular opinions. Supreme Court Justices serve for life to
free them from having to bow to the prevailing political winds. All
these arrangements make sense, until one considers the curious case
of the U.S. House of Representatives.

    Talk about guaranteed federal jobs. Last November only six of
the 408 House members running for re-election were defeated, and
three of the losers had been tarred by very serious ethics
problems. Few incumbents lay awake nights worrying about the
unemployment line; 88% triumphed with at least 60% of the vote, the
classic definition of a safe district. The traditional levers of
incumbency, augmented by the largesse of political-action
committees, have created this modern version of a rotten-borough
system. In the four House elections since 1980, a total of 1,740
seats were at stake, yet only about 30 sitting Congressmen were
defeated for reasons other than redistricting and ethics.
Old-fashioned democratic reasons, that is, like having a strong
opponent or taking stands unpopular with the voters.

    In an ideal world, these legislators-for-life would reward the
faithful electorate with an impressive display of bravery and
statesmanlike behavior. So much for naive theory. To watch the
House at work last week was akin to viewing one of those 1950s
science-fiction movies in which the world quakes in dread of
invaders from outer space. The climate of fear was that palpable.

    The issue was, of course, the proposed pay raise that would
have lifted congressional wages from $89,500 to $135,000 a year and
far more equitably compensated federal judges and top Executive
Branch officials. After weeks of public posturing against the Great
Salary Grab, while privately coveting the raises, Congressmen had
been hopeful that their Machiavellian maneuvers would pay off --
literally. If House Speaker Jim Wright just held firm against a
vote, the salary increase would automatically take effect at
midnight last Tuesday night. But Wright wavered; the House quavered
and overwhelmingly killed the salary hike by a vote of 380 to 48.

    Such are the rewards of cynicism and cowardice. The passions
aroused by the pay fray may have been extraordinary, but the
duplicitous behavior it spawned is typical. Running for cover has
become such natural behavior that Congressmen will go to extremes
to duck accountability. The only way Congress could muster the
moxie to close 86 outmoded military bases was first to appoint a
commission whose recommendations will automatically take effect in
April unless rescinded by both houses. To mask its inability to
confront the deficit, Congress created the Gramm-Rudman guillotine,
which arbitrarily cuts the budget if compromise fails.

    Why are Congressmen so chicken?  The most persuasive answers
do not fit any of the orderly models found in political-science
textbooks. Instead they are rooted in the peculiar folkways of the
small town of 435 residents known as the House of Representatives.

    Once Bitten, Forever Shy.

    Most legislators survived at least one tough election early in
their careers, and the anxiety lingers. "It's the built-in
nervousness in the system," says Michigan Democratic Congressman
Sander Levin. "People who should be sure tend to be unsure." Small
wonder that even the safest incumbents run up huge surpluses in
their campaign war chests to deter future challengers.

    The Fear of Downward Mobility.

    Congressmen are not devoid of humility, and some legislators
recognize that if it were not for a few lucky breaks, they would
be back home peddling insurance. One Democrat ridicules a colleague
from an adjoining district as "scared of his shadow.'' The
explanation: "He knows that he's at the pinnacle of his life, and
if he ever lost this job, he could never live like this again."

    The Ghost of Incumbents Past.

    Legislators are haunted by the specter of defeated colleagues,
even those from another era. Jimmy Carter was still President when
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Al Ullman lost a
re-election bid in 1980, in part because of his advocacy of a
value-added tax. But nearly a decade later, a Congressman cannot
even discuss the possibility of that kind of tax increase without
being warned, "Remember what happened to Ullman." Last year,
despite the 99% re-election rate, two powerful House Democrats were
rejected by the voters. Such dramatic defeats are frightening to
legislators, argues G.O.P. Congressman Newt Gingrich of Georgia,
"even if they're statistically irrelevant. It's like fear of
flying."

    The Inconvenience of Opposition.

    For a Congressman, it is beguiling to run for re-election
challenged only by a Trotskyite and a vegetarian. In 1988, 65
incumbents ran unopposed. Congressmen so blessed are reluctant to
take a stance that might complicate re-election. "The risk they are
averting is not the loss of their seat," explains Republican
Congressman Dick Armey of Texas, "but that they have to go home and
face a rigorous challenge." A House Democratic leader says
colleagues sometimes complain, "If I cast that vote, I've bought
myself an opponent next time."

    This sort of timidity cuts to the heart of what is so troubling
about anointing legislators for life. "The issue is not that we
need to defeat incumbents," contends Fred Wertheimer, president of
Common Cause. "It's just that competitive elections are what
democracy is all about." What matters, in short, is not the amount
that Congressmen are paid, but whether the nation can again create
a political system in which they earn it.