Tweet
DEBATE GOOD FOR THE SYSTEM
Lee H. Hamilton
Washington Times
Oct 31 2007
We certainly have a quarrelsome Congress. In recent weeks its members
have been arguing about funding children's health insurance, whether
to assert that the Turks committed World War I-era genocide against the
Armenians, and what sort of energy policy should guide the nation. Then
there's the ongoing issue of the Iraq war, the constant debate over
how to fix our health-care system, and any number of other dust-ups
and outright policy brawls that seem to take place every time you
look in on a committee room or chamber on Capitol Hill.
A lot of people don't like this. Pretty much every time I address
an audience, someone complains, "I'm sick and tired of all the
bickering. Those guys are always fighting." And everyone around
will nod.
Most people are uncomfortable with disagreement and debate. As
individuals, this is fine; but as citizens, I would argue that we
should not only get used to it, we should be pleased by it. It has been
a constant in American politics, and let us hope it always will be.
Extensive debate is written into the very structure of our
congressional system. At every level, from subcommittees through
committees to the floor of each chamber and then to the conference
committees that bring members from each house of Congress together,
there is the presumption of discussion, debate, disagreement and
even argument. Our Founders understood the importance of conflict in
the system, both as a way for all views to be represented, and as a
process for building common ground among them.
For the fundamental fact of our democracy is that Americans, despite
all that unites us, nonetheless have much that divides us: different
philosophies, different prospects in life, different backgrounds,
different communities, different ways to define what is in our
self-interest, what is in our community's interest, and what is in
our nation's best interest.
It's true that these divisions can be exacerbated by special interests,
the media and politicians all seeking to exploit them to their own
ends, but that doesn't mean the initial differences don't exist. They
do. And it is Congress' job to sort through them as it strives to
find the majorities it needs to move forward on legislation. If there
weren't conflict, Congress wouldn't be doing its job.
There are certainly times when the conflict built into our system
gets out of hand, and the people involved become mean-spirited or
angry. But overall, disputation and debate are not a weakness of our
democracy, they're a strength. They lead to better, more sustainable
decisions. They help to build majority support for a proposal. And they
are part of how we talk to one another as we search for common ground.
Let me give you an example. Over the years in Washington, there has
been much discussion about whether the nation ought to have a single
director of national intelligence. I was initially quite skeptical
about the value of reorganizing our intelligence community to impose
such a position. Then, however, I served as co-chair of the September
11 Commission. We had long, sometimes very pointed debates about how
our intelligence system was working, and by the end I'd come to the
conclusion that the only way to obtain the sharing of intelligence
information our country needs was to centralize authority in a single
directorate. In other words, I changed my mind because of our debates.
The same thing is constantly taking place in Congress. Some issues are
extremely difficult to resolve. They take years of wrangling, arguing
and debate simply for members to find enough common ground so they
can move forward. It helps to look past the often messy process and
judge Congress by the end results. The minimum-wage bill that passed
earlier this year; how best to shape our homeland security system;
how to structure children's health insurance - all of these have been
subject to heartfelt and sometimes quite contentious disputes over the
years, but in the end, Congress reaches a conclusion and we move on.
Indeed, I believe that we are stronger for the sometimes difficult road
Congress has to travel as it searches for solutions to the challenges
that confront us. For a strong debate means that all sides get a chance
to be heard and have their arguments weighed. It means that there is
less chance that power will be concentrated to the point of stifling
our voices. Keep in mind that the most efficient and conflict-free
political system is a dictatorship.
So let's not expect Congress to be free of disagreement and
contention. The better approach is to manage the debate so it is
civil, inclusive, serious and constructive. Yes, Congress sometimes
has trouble managing itself, but that is a far better problem than
if our system allowed for no conflict at all.
Lee H. Hamilton is director of the Center on Congress at Indiana
University. He was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for
34 years.
Lee H. Hamilton
Washington Times
Oct 31 2007
We certainly have a quarrelsome Congress. In recent weeks its members
have been arguing about funding children's health insurance, whether
to assert that the Turks committed World War I-era genocide against the
Armenians, and what sort of energy policy should guide the nation. Then
there's the ongoing issue of the Iraq war, the constant debate over
how to fix our health-care system, and any number of other dust-ups
and outright policy brawls that seem to take place every time you
look in on a committee room or chamber on Capitol Hill.
A lot of people don't like this. Pretty much every time I address
an audience, someone complains, "I'm sick and tired of all the
bickering. Those guys are always fighting." And everyone around
will nod.
Most people are uncomfortable with disagreement and debate. As
individuals, this is fine; but as citizens, I would argue that we
should not only get used to it, we should be pleased by it. It has been
a constant in American politics, and let us hope it always will be.
Extensive debate is written into the very structure of our
congressional system. At every level, from subcommittees through
committees to the floor of each chamber and then to the conference
committees that bring members from each house of Congress together,
there is the presumption of discussion, debate, disagreement and
even argument. Our Founders understood the importance of conflict in
the system, both as a way for all views to be represented, and as a
process for building common ground among them.
For the fundamental fact of our democracy is that Americans, despite
all that unites us, nonetheless have much that divides us: different
philosophies, different prospects in life, different backgrounds,
different communities, different ways to define what is in our
self-interest, what is in our community's interest, and what is in
our nation's best interest.
It's true that these divisions can be exacerbated by special interests,
the media and politicians all seeking to exploit them to their own
ends, but that doesn't mean the initial differences don't exist. They
do. And it is Congress' job to sort through them as it strives to
find the majorities it needs to move forward on legislation. If there
weren't conflict, Congress wouldn't be doing its job.
There are certainly times when the conflict built into our system
gets out of hand, and the people involved become mean-spirited or
angry. But overall, disputation and debate are not a weakness of our
democracy, they're a strength. They lead to better, more sustainable
decisions. They help to build majority support for a proposal. And they
are part of how we talk to one another as we search for common ground.
Let me give you an example. Over the years in Washington, there has
been much discussion about whether the nation ought to have a single
director of national intelligence. I was initially quite skeptical
about the value of reorganizing our intelligence community to impose
such a position. Then, however, I served as co-chair of the September
11 Commission. We had long, sometimes very pointed debates about how
our intelligence system was working, and by the end I'd come to the
conclusion that the only way to obtain the sharing of intelligence
information our country needs was to centralize authority in a single
directorate. In other words, I changed my mind because of our debates.
The same thing is constantly taking place in Congress. Some issues are
extremely difficult to resolve. They take years of wrangling, arguing
and debate simply for members to find enough common ground so they
can move forward. It helps to look past the often messy process and
judge Congress by the end results. The minimum-wage bill that passed
earlier this year; how best to shape our homeland security system;
how to structure children's health insurance - all of these have been
subject to heartfelt and sometimes quite contentious disputes over the
years, but in the end, Congress reaches a conclusion and we move on.
Indeed, I believe that we are stronger for the sometimes difficult road
Congress has to travel as it searches for solutions to the challenges
that confront us. For a strong debate means that all sides get a chance
to be heard and have their arguments weighed. It means that there is
less chance that power will be concentrated to the point of stifling
our voices. Keep in mind that the most efficient and conflict-free
political system is a dictatorship.
So let's not expect Congress to be free of disagreement and
contention. The better approach is to manage the debate so it is
civil, inclusive, serious and constructive. Yes, Congress sometimes
has trouble managing itself, but that is a far better problem than
if our system allowed for no conflict at all.
Lee H. Hamilton is director of the Center on Congress at Indiana
University. He was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for
34 years.