TIME: Almanac 1993/TIME Almanac 1993.iso/time/022089/02208900.047

Text File | 1992-09-23 | 5.9 KB | 125 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.