Political Parties Are Not "Checks" Or "Balances"

There's an old inside-the-Beltway joke where a new House member is being shown around by a veteran of his own party. He is awed by entering the House floor for the first time, and is shown his new seat. He asks, pointing across the aisle to where the other party sits, "Is that where the enemy sits?" The older and wiser Congressman replies, "No, no, here in the House of Representatives we call our opponents 'the loyal opposition.' You're new, so you need to understand this. 'The enemy' is the Senate."

This joke came to mind while listening and reading to Republicans talk about tomorrow's runoff race between the incumbent Saxby Chambliss and his Democratic challenger Jim Martin. Because they're using a talking point which is false and which points out their own ignorance. And since it is ignorance we speak of, where better to begin than a Sarah Palin quote? (Ahem.) Here she is today, at a rally in Georgia on "Saxby's" behalf (others have pointed out that she never used Chambliss' last name, but I refuse to believe it was because she can't pronounce it):

We need Saxby because we need checks and balances in Washington. And we will not have that if Saxby is not reelected, Georgia. With one party in control of the House and the Senate and the White House we need a conservative who will speak for themselves.

Putting aside how "Saxby" (singular) morphs into "themselves" (plural), notice the phrase "checks and balances" and how it is being used.

It's not just Palin, either. Here is the Savannah Morning News' "SavannahNow" webpage, with the paper's runoff endorsements:

Returning Mr. Chambliss to the Senate means Democratic leaders won't be able to ramrod bills through the upper chamber without serious deliberation. Checks and balances still have places in Washington, despite impressive wins at the polls by President-elect Obama and other Democrats.

And, finally, here is the candidate himself on "Fox News Sunday" yesterday, being interviewed by Chris Wallace:

WALLACE: But you have campaigned against the president-elect and the Democrats. I want to take a look at something you said a few days ago. "If the Minnesota race was lost and this race was lost, then they," meaning the Democrats, "will have a blank check."

CHAMBLISS: That's exactly right. And Jim Martin, my opponent, is committed to doing everything that the president-elect wants him to do. And I'm simply not going to do that. You know, our government was based on a check and balance system: the administrative, legislative, judicial. Within the legislative, we've always had a check and balance by design. And if we give him a blank check, then I think it will not be in the best interests of the country and I will continue to promote that over the next 72 hours.

This is either astounding ignorance from a sitting Senator, or else a Republican-spun talking point which everyone coincidentally seems to be using. But, either way, the concept of having enough party strength in the Senate to filibuster bills simply was not a founding principle of the U.S. government. The word "filibuster" appears nowhere in the Constitution. The first filibuster didn't even happen until 1841. Rules for filibusters were worked out by the Senate (and then subsequently eviscerated by the concept of "cloture" later). So there is just no factual basis for saying "we've always" had such "a check and balance by design." Because we haven't.

Checks and balances are a different thing entirely. They have largely been absent for the last eight years, so I suppose it shouldn't be any wonder that Republicans have forgotten what the phrase originally meant. Checks and balances refer to the struggle for power between our three branches of government. Some powers are given to one branch or another with no such check or balance (such as the power to pardon, given to the president). These absolute powers are checks and balances -- such as the power of the Congress to impeach and remove the president. Some of these absolute powers (astonishingly enough) have even been given away from one branch to another (Congress' power to declare war, for instance, since World War II). And sometimes power grabs or power abdications by one branch or another actually realign the checks-and-balances structure of the government itself (see: George W. Bush and Dick Cheney's term in office).

Every day of Bush's term has seemingly been a series of power grabs by the Executive Branch which go largely ignored by the Legislative Branch (see, just from last week: Bush's new Status Of Forces Agreement with Iraq, which should have been voted on in the Senate as a treaty, but was not). This, at first, was aided and abetted by a friendly Congress of his own party, and (later) by the weakness of the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. But the real check and balance of the Legislative Branch over the president is what is commonly referred to as "oversight." That, and the fact that the president doesn't get to write the text of the laws, he merely gets to sign them or veto them as written.

The entire concept of oversight has been woefully absent from Washington for the past eight years. The concept is that the Legislative Branch oversees what the Executive Branch is doing for the good of the country -- no matter what party is in power in either branch. Anyone who believes this is not possible need only look back to Bill Clinton's first two years, or Jimmy Carter's term in office. Even though the Congress was Democratic, they still were not rubber stamps for every action of the President. Democrats in Congress will need to perform oversight of Barack Obama, whether they have a 60-vote majority in the Senate or not. Just as any Congress is supposed to, without regard to party.

This transcends party affiliation, in other words. It's not hard to see why Republicans have a hard time grasping this concept, but whether the Senate is 60/40 or merely 58/42 should not matter to the "checks and balances" they provide for the other two branches of government. I certainly didn't hear any hand-wringing about checks and balances when Republicans took over both houses of Congress during George Bush's watch.

Of course, getting 60 seats in the Senate would change the dynamic of one single branch, but that really has nothing to do with constitutional "checks and balances." It has much more to do with passing a single party's agenda, and the relative power of the "out" party's ability to influence or block such legislation. But this has nothing to do with how the Framers set up our government.

Checks and balances do not equate to the relative balance of power between political parties. They are more important than that. Just because we haven't seen much of them in eight years does not mean we should lose sight of the definition of the term itself. Political parties were originally seen as a corrosive influence on American politics, by none other than our very first leader. Here is President George Washington, talking about political parties:

They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

. . .

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

So whether Saxby Chambliss retains his seat or not (at this point, it's looking like he is going to win tomorrow), the checks and balances of American government will not be in peril. The ease of passing legislation in the Senate may be impacted, but there are still a few moderate Republicans (such as both of Maine's senators) who might be induced to vote for Democratic proposals, so even that is doubtful. But I'm not too worried about whether checks and balances will disappear if Republicans don't have more than 40 seats in the Senate. Because true checks and balances are more fundamental than party affiliation.

And the fact that Republicans obviously don't see it this way is but one more condemnation of the way both George Bush and Congressional Republicans view how our government is supposed to work -- and how they attempted to govern while in power.

 

Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com

 

Comments

[thecanadian]

Excellent article. The very last paragraph applies not only to the U.S. but countries such as Canada right now. Thank you.

[ObjectiveRealist]

This brings to mind a quote I can't place at the moment, to the effect that it's the *ambition* of the Congress which is expected to keep the ambition of any corrupt President in check. Without too much effort, Democrats should have been able to make the case that incumbent Congressional Republicans have, for eight straight years, demonstrated a lethargy that contradicts any campaign trail claims of ambition to contribute meaningfully to national policy. Maybe in 2010 the Democrats' own apparent complicity in enabling this "Unitary Executive" will be far enough behind to make such principled arguments, with a straight face?

[LewDan]

You're right as far as you go, but the "checks and balances" of the founders are based on the THREE branches of government, not just the two. The idea is that a two-thirds majority rules. Any two branches of government can effectively overrule the third.

With only TWO parties (or branches) all you get is grid-lock. THAT'S what the Republicans are REALLY talking about. The "checks and balances" argument is just a fig leaf to provide plausible deny ability when the Republicans deny the peoples elected representative the ability to govern by shutting down the government using filibusters

They simply want to prevent Democrats from governing, then blaming Democrats for government inaction in hopes of frustrating the will of the people so that THEY can return to power by claiming to be a "change" from a "do nothing congress." That is why preventing a Democratic filibuster proof 60-seat majority is vital to them.

Another phrase they prostitute is "loyal opposition." Instead of meaning principled opposition for the good of the nation, they mean opposition for the sake of regaining power even if the country suffers in the process.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

LewDan -

What's even more interesting is when one branch thumbs its nose at the others. Such as Andy Jackson and the Cherokee Supreme Court case, for instance.

Your last paragraph was excellent, and I fully agree with you.

-CW

[LewDan]

Both Jackson and and Congress ignored the Supreme Court, not just Jackson, although Congress did hide under the "treaty" fig leaf provided by Jackson.

[Nutcase]

The Founders didn't quite fully involve all three branches in the 'checks and balances.' If memory serves (yet another birthday coming this Thursday) it was Marbury v. Madison that really brought the judiciary into the game.

The legislature can impeach, rid themselves of, those in the other branches. That is a unique, unbalanced, unchecked power.

You get the sort of gridlock we have experienced when the executive ignores the limitations imposed on it by the Constitution and the Congress refuses to live up to its responsibilities. In both cases we are faced with extra-cons­titutional facts, not a failure of the Constitution. These 'public servants' swore to uphold the Constitution. Their failures are not the failure of the Constitution.

[Nutcase]

It should be unnecessary to warn against expecting Saxby Chambliss or Sarah Palin to be qualified guides to understanding our government or its Constitution.

While checks are easily understood, the word balance is considerably slipperier. A balance suggests elements of equal weight. That is not and was not meant to be the case with our various branches of government. The term balance has led us to spouting off about 'co-equal branches.' There is no such animal.

The prime directive of the Executive Branch is to execute the laws coming from the Legislative Branch. While the President has the power to veto a bill, the Congress can eliminate the President. That's hardly balance.

Inside of Congress lurks another unbalanced mechanism. The Framers meant for the two houses to be unequal. While the Senate has 'Advise and Consent,' the House has the 'Power of the Purse.' They are further put at odds by the House being the only element elected directly by the people. Senators were originally appointed by the states. Being the most directly representative of the people entitled the House to be the premier part of our government; at least that was the intent.

Remember, balance is a tricky concept and co-equal is nonsense.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

Nutcase -

I hear what you're saying. But the "balance" part gets complicated, because there are really no laws and few precedents for what happens when two branches have a showdown.

In your example, Congress can make something illegal, but then the President can pardon anyone convicted, which is a type of balance, although perhaps an unequal one, I admit. And the courts can chuck the law itself out. Or Congress can override a veto.

The Framers were (justifiably) worried about too strong an executive, and "put their thumb on the scales" of the Legislative, in my opinion, since they thought it would be "closer to the People."

But you do indeed raise a good point about the relative "balance" of power. The amusing thing to me is that this intellectual argument began BEFORE the Constitution was even ratified, and continues to this day (as in the "unitary executive" theory).

Thanks for writing.

-CW

[ObjectiveRealist]

I've never seen a political discussion that couldn't be made worse with a car analogy. Nutcase describes the concept of balance as necessarily implying equal weights leading to a situation equivalent to a Statics problem. But a properly *balanced* wheel does not imply motionlessness, it implies a constraint to move in support of its intended function.

[OlderBudWeiser]

One would only hope the people of Ga. would see Palin as the snake oil sales person she is. Don't just blindly "buy" what ANY politition says. Educate yourselves on facts. Palin obviously is not educated in civics or much else. My jaw dropped on the "checks and balances" phony sales pitch. She either is dumb as a box of rocks or thinks the citizens of Ga. are. Probably both!

[bygollymissmolly]

Returning Mr. Chambliss to the Senate means Democratic leaders won't be able to ramrod bills through the upper chamber without serious deliberation. Checks and balances still have places in Washington, despite impressive wins at the polls by President-elect Obama and other Democrats.
----------­----------­----------­-
That's interesting. Where were the "checks and balances" when the Republicans were ramrodding bills through for the first 6 years of the Bush administration?

[standard]

Chris--

Excellent post, including its highlighting Ms. Palin's mismatched singular subject and plural pronoun.

Two thoughts: Your spellchecker may have inserted "closure" for "cloture". Also, in "Checks and balances refer to the struggle . . . between our three branches of government." it may have been better to use "among" (not "between") even if that's a dying usage.

You may also want to admonish those who routinely say "our Commander-in-Chief" when referring to the President. The President is the Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces, not of our entire government or the American people. Only when the speaker is an active member of the military is "our" the appropriate adjective. That's important because the President gives binding orders to the military, but not to Congress, the Judiciary or all Americans: they shouldn't view him as their "commander". Even most of the Executive branch has a right to question directives from the President.

Failing to note this last point leads to thinking just as sloppy as not understanding the meaning of "checks and balances". That members of the Bush administration have long misused the term "Commander­-in-Chief" is to be expected. Their leader called Alberto Gonzales "General Gonzales", in the mistaken belief that in the title "Attorney General" the word "General" is a noun.

Thank you for your attention to significant details!

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

standard -

Hmmm... let me guess... is the last name of your login "English" by any chance? Heh heh.

First, you're exactly right about my spellchecker. I wrote it as "cloture" and it popped out as "closure". It has been fixed (and added to the spellchecker), thanks for the sharp eye.

Between/among -- you are technically right, I probably should have used "among" (or perhaps "amongst"), but here's my thinking on that one (when I wrote it). The struggles are usually between two branches, with the third sitting it out. It's actually rare that all three get involved, although it does happen. A thin reed grammatically, but that's all I've got here.

I totally agree with "Commander­-in-Chief,­" and rarely use it myself. Good point about "our" though -- the rule should obviously be "if you have to salute him, you can call him 'our' or 'my' CINC."

As for your last point, my personal bugaboo is people who say "Attorney Generals" instead of "Attorneys General."

Since we're having a grammatic chat here, I have to ask (this one I am inconsistent on in usage): when do you capitalize the word "President" (or "Senator" for that matter)? Sometimes I do it one way, sometimes another....

Thanks for writing, and for your attention to detail as well.

-CW

[standard]

I hadn't pondered the matter before, but a quick look at a few relevant books suggests that the rule is that you don't capitalize "president" unless:

1. it's a title that appears immediately before an individual's name [President Bush; President Uribe of Colombia; President Bollinger of Columbia University];

2. it's used in place of an individual's name [The President will hold a news conference today.];

3. it's necessary to indicate that the reference is to the president of the United States [The Constitution requires that sitting Presidents deliver a report to Congress annually.]; or

4. there's some generic reason, such as the word appearing at the start of a sentence or as part of the title of a book or movie [Presidents are leaders. I enjoy seeing "The American President".].

Exception 3 is open to interpretation (When is it "necessary" to indicate that?) and so, subject to the requirements of specific publishers' or publications' style manuals--or individual discretion.

My bottom line on exception 3 is: Just as "envelope" may be pronounced "EN-vel-ope" or "ON-vel-ope", whether to capitalize "president" is sometimes open to individual preference--or whim. However, I suspect that professors of English--and books I haven't seen--won't necessarily agree.

[follyeoa]

The filibuster is not mentioned in the constitution, but each house sets their own rules. Return to the desires of the Framers that is, one Representitive for each 30,000 people and the Senate elected by the state legislatures, and there will be less partisanship.

[LeftRight]

You would also have a House of Representatives that would contain 10,000 members! And you thought that nothing was being done NOW!

[davism97]

You make a very good point. The 3 branches of government were created before any party existed at all! The 2 party system didn't start to take shape until several years into George Washington's presidency. Also when the Republicans virtually owned the government in the early 1800s (and the Federalists became a pathetic minority party) the checks and balances system seemed to work just fine. So you're right, partisanship is completely unrelated to checks and balances.

[follyeoa]

The Framers were aware that political partys would be formed, we may have blamed our colonial woes on good old King George, but it was a partisan parlement that we rebelled against.

[anachoret]

Thank you for the post, Mr. Weigant.

I wish you would have written this when everyone was cheering the fact that it was so brilliant to keep Joe Lieberman in his Chairmanship, because he is so indebted to Obama that he will be "under his thumb," and they can just get rid of him if actually does his job.
But they're right that the appearance of that relationship exists... I would rather have someone that people trust, than someone that people think is a stooge.

[kellygrrrl]

where was all this call for checking and balancing while BushCheney were dictating their WarGames and shredding the Constitution?
Did we get that from the Fair and Balanced FauxNews?
Did we get that from the "Country First" Mavericks?
Did I miss something?

[philistine]

Let's not forget the "nuclear option" threatened by Senate Republicans in 2005 to ramrod Bush's judicial nominees through confirmation proceedings. Now, they whine about checks and balances. The only checks they care about come from corporate donors.

[scooperss]

Oh they *checked and balanced* all right.

But for these fools that means them having the upper hand . Period.

[ObjectiveRealist]

In fact, their accounts are literally Trillions of Dollars overdrawn. Calling a failed investment that has become a liability a "Troubled Asset" is the basis of Henry Paulson's gimmick. I wish I knew why any adult has the slightest difficulty seeing through it.

[kwazimota]

why participate its 2 party democracy charade keep her integrity run as an independent in 12

[kwazimota]

i only wish mrs palin knew the compromises her party of panderers are leading her to are not for georgia or control in washington but to destroy her this should be called the molestation of sarah the death of our dreams does she understand the georgia race?who knows