Seniority System Blues…
by Zachary Kushel, Opinions Asst. Editor on November 11, 2009 in Opinion
Americans take pride in the supposed ability of the U.S. constitution to hold elected officials accountable to the people. Every two years in November, voters have the ability to select new members for every seat in the U.S. House of Representatives and one-third of the seats in the U.S Senate. By design, the system is set up, like in every democracy, to ensure that lawmakers accurately represent the constituents that vote them into office.
Yet, in reality, entrenched internal norms of Congress adversely impact the ability of elections to lead to real change. While the votes of new members of Congress are technically equal to those of veteran members, the relative power of new members within the rigid hierarchy of Congress’ committee system is hampered by their junior status.
As we have been constantly reminded throughout the recent debate on health care reform, the committee structure places a large amount of power in the hands of committee chairmen. Entire policy initiatives and sectors of the economy are not left to the consideration of the entire deliberative bodies. Instead, they are at the discretion of an individual member elected by a small minority of the country’s voters.
Both Democrats and Republicans allow their party caucuses to determine each committee chairman by a vote of the caucus. But rather than initiating true competition and vigorous internal debate about the merits of potential candidates, both parties instead defer to seniority. As a general rule of thumb, they simply allow the most senior member of the party on that committee to, by default, serve as its chairman.
As might be expected, the direct impact of this procedure is that many of the most powerful individuals in Congress also tend to be the oldest. Senator Robert Byrd, 91, served as Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee until earlier this year. When he finally relinquished his post, he was replaced by 85-year-old Senator Daniel Inouye. The excruciating pace that is required in the modern legislative process makes fulfilling the duties of a committee chairman extremely difficult for young members, let alone for members in their eighties and nineties.
The Appropriations Committee maintains control over virtually all discretionary spending in the U.S. The chairman has some ability to direct or hold-up funding as he/she may deem appropriate, despite what the congressionally approved budget resolution may call for. It is difficult to make the argument that, in 2009, the ideal individuals to hold this position would be a man elected during the Eisenhower Administration and a Medal of Honor recipient from World War II.
The late Senator Strom Thurmond served as Chairman of the Armed Services Committee until 1999, when he was 96-years-old. Would you prefer a 96-year-old to oversee our nation’s military simply by default? Is there any other industry where individuals of such advanced age could serve in positions of such great power? The inevitable result is that staff end up running more than just the day-to-day operations of the committee. In cases where members are absent or ill, the staff director essentially functions as a de-facto-chairman, sometimes for months at a time. These unelected individuals, who few of us have heard of and are subject to limited public scrutiny, hold power over large portions of domestic and even foreign policy.
The seniority system also rewards with power those individuals who are furthest insulated from the electorate. These are most often members who were first elected many years ago and hail from districts or states where the party balance sways heavily in one direction. Safe seats fail to ensure that the actions of these chairmen are scrutinized in regularly competitive elections.
The result is an incestuous status quo under the facade of a seniority system. This must be abandoned. We should allow for the proper functioning of the current process whereby true, internal party caucus elections ought to be held. The successful challenge by Congressman Henry Waxman against fellow Congressman John Dingell this past fall for the chairmanship of the House Energy and Commerce Committee was a model for future selections. The House Democratic caucus wanted climate change to be at the forefront of the committee’s agenda and elected a better-equipped – and more junior – member to advance such an agenda.
The election of President Obama proved that age and experience are both overrated factors for the majority of Americans. Age should itself neither be a factor nor a disqualifier in determining a chairmanship. There should be true competition for these positions. If a party caucus feels that a 90-year-old is the most qualified and capable individual to serve as a chairman, and express this view via their votes, then the 90-year-old should be awarded the position without hesitation. But such scrutiny must take place, as longevity does not necessarily equate to quality. Selecting committee chairmen more likely to advance the interests of the electorate may go a long way in improving Congress’ still-anemic approval ratings.
Comments
Got something to say?
