No one can realistically say that South Carolina Congressman Joe Wilson's outburst of "you lie" was an appropriate gesture for a presidential address. However, the Republican catcalls during the speech such as "shame" and "read the bill" are also being called uncivil. Democrats are allowed to applaud, but Republicans are not allowed to boo. As John Barry points out, the idea that we should not have public displays of displeasure at the administration in the Congress
may be a very "un-democratic" notion:
I'm from Britain. Despite my years here, I still find value in a rougher political culture. In Britain, the prime minister has to face the House of Commons every Wednesday afternoon to answer any and all questions posed to him. It’s a daunting ordeal. The PM and his staff swot for hours that morning to figure out what he may be asked and to dream up the most crushing answers—or, of course, the most evasive ones. Yes, I know. These are two different systems of governance. The House of Commons is a gladiatorial arena in a galaxy light-years distant from the speechifying to empty chambers that characterizes all-too-many supposed Congressional debates. The rival parties’ front benches confronting each other in the Commons are still spaced just sufficiently apart to be beyond the reach of a sword thrust. That’s an 18th-century precaution, but cut and thrust is still the style in Commons’ debates. And government is the better for it.
And, yes, I know that the British prime minister is only the head of government; whereas the president is the head of state. It is also true that when, in Britain, the head of state reads the Queen’s address to the two assembled chambers of Parliament, noises of dissent would be unthinkable. Even though that address is the political agenda of the ruling party. But that’s a purely ceremonial occasion. In the subsequent Commons debate on the Queen’s speech, the gloves come off.
Obama’s address last evening wasn’t an American version of the Queen’s speech. He wasn’t appearing as head of state, handing down nation-building sentiments from on high. He was talking as embattled leader of the ruling party. So why was dissent, politely phrased, out of order?
The episode, trivial in itself, perfectly illustrates what I think has become a real source of damage to American democracy: a confusion between the president’s two roles. More precisely, our failure to figure out a way to cope with them. The Founding Fathers saw the president as an aloof figure, above the turmoil of the two chambers of the legislature. George Washington, the father of the nation, was such a protean figure. But the role of the president has evolved beyond anything the Founding Fathers ever envisaged. Now, he is head of a vast and vastly powerful executive branch. He is, and is expected to be, an activist head of government—a prime minister as well as head of state.
So when does our head of government answer to questioning by the legislature? Unless he’s impeached, the answer is never.
The presidency was never intended to be at the head of a vast leviathan, and yet it is in this day and age. Yet the President of the United States is not held publicly accountable to Congress for his actions as head of government. When he addressed Congress Wednesday night, Barack Obama did not speak as our Head of State, but as the head of government, and what he was attempting to do was to have the floor in the House for as long as he wanted to take it without being made to answer for himself. He wanted to tell the American people his version of the health care story, and share with them the idea that their concerns were not rooted in reality. While the President was saying these things, no one was able to counter him.
Indeed, no one has been able to directly ask the President serious questions about his proposal for our health care system. We who do not like his prescription are left to lampoon it without having to see the President defend it in answer to the questions of the opposition so that the opposition knows his real answer to their concerns. The President has not been made to give the American people real answers because neither Congress nor our laws presently require it.
Before the federal government might consider adopting a periodic question period by Congress for the President, it may be that a State should try it first, so that those in public life have some idea of how it might be made to work. Why shouldn't Tennessee be the first State to hold our Governors up to such public legislative scrutiny? It could be easily made part of the legislative schedule, such as having the Governor appear for questioning in the well of the House immediately following the regular business of both Houses on Monday evenings, which is typically a time of short sessions anyway (of course, the General Assembly may choose a different day and time). In our system the General Assembly can meet in joint convention for Question Time, and the Lieutenant Governor can preside as he (or she) usually does at any other joint convention. For the benefit of insuring brevity, Question period for the Governor should probably be limited to 30 minutes a week except in a time of some crisis or emergency-and during a crisis, a chief executive should be liable to serious unrehearsed questioning by the legislature over policy. One thing that this proposal would have in common with the British system is that the Chief Executive should not be told of members' questions in advance-the Governor should be prepared to answer any question, and if he or she can't, it would lay bare possible inadequacies in certain areas of policy.
Governor's Question Time would not only air on the internet to a world wide audience on the General Assembly's website, but should be aired live on government access cable channels all over Tennessee each week. Further, any television and radio station who wanted to air the question period should be able to, and this would lead to a maximum amount of openness. The Governor's office is at the Capitol, and he or she should be liable to questioning by the General Assembly about the policies he or she creates on the floor below.
If this system were to work here in Tennessee, it could function at the federal level, and President Obama would have to answer the allegation that he is lying about his health care proposal (and anything else) on the spot and give real evidence. It is time to hold the heads of our governments to account in the halls of the legislative bodies charged with checking their authority.
Comments