Recalling less partisan Congress

Opinion: July 24, 2011 at 12:00a.m.

Some years before she died, former first lady Betty Ford asked journalist Cokie Roberts to speak at her funeral “to remind everyone of the way things used to be in Washington.” And in last week’s eulogy, which Roberts called especially apt amid the current intense partisanship in Washington, she recalled the days when her late father, Rep. Hale Boggs, was House Democratic leader and Ford’s husband was the Republican leader.

Citing an interview before the former president’s death when he said, “I just don’t understand what’s happened in Washington,” Roberts described how Ford and Boggs would often travel together to an event, exchange genuine partisan disagreements there and then “get back in the cab together and be best friends.” “Their friendship made governing possible,” Roberts said. “They weren’t questioning each other’s motives, less their commitment to the country.” And their friendship was underlined by their wives’ close relationship, she added.

BIPARTISAN FRIENDSHIPS

Roberts’ eulogy spotlighted what’s often missing at the highest levels of today’s Washington, those personal relationships and friendships that cross party lines and enable leaders to compromise in the interest of achieving a greater good.

To someone who has watched the decline in comity firsthand for 48 years, it’s clear many factors are responsible — some personal, some institutional and others stemming from developments beyond the control of individuals.

In the early 1960s, the onset of jet travel made it easier for lawmakers to go home. They expanded government-paid trips, meaning they spent less time getting to know one another here.

Their desire to return to their districts was accentuated when the pressures of the Cold War and government expansion led to all-year congressional sessions.

It also concentrated most legislative business between Tuesday and Thursday, meaning members increasingly spent most of their time at committee meetings, legislative sessions and fundraisers. In the 1990s, Republican leaders actively urged members not to move here to strengthen ties to their districts.

More intensive media coverage, from C-SPAN’s live telecasts of House and Senate sessions to the end of most closed committee meetings, and aggressive party committees made it harder for members to compromise.

The rise of ’round-the-clock cable news channels, which thrive on conflict, accentuated partisanship.

As the two major parties became more ideologically homogeneous, rather than broad coalitions, legislative politics changed from a search for common ground into a continuous war for partisan advantage.

Reapportionment tended to replace moderate centrists of both parties with very liberal Democrats or very conservative Republicans.

Often, one party’s acts prompted a contrary response from the other.

LINGERING BICKERING

Memories are long. Some Republicans still complain about how the House Democratic majority seated the Democrat in a disputed 1984 Indiana election. Democrats cite Newt Gingrich’s tactics on his rise to power and as Republican House speaker. Routine contact between party leaders gradually diminished.

Gingrich’s practice of concentrating power in the speakership, governing through Republicans and limiting floor amendments was matched by Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats a dozen years later, in part because of increasing difficulty in getting support from the opposition for any initiative.

Barack Obama’s disdain for Republicans in 2009, when he told them pointedly he could call the shots because he “won” in 2008, backfired when the GOP won House control in 2010.

Campaigns no longer end when the votes are counted. A day after the 1992 election, Senate Republican Leader Bob Dole vowed to mobilize the 57 percent who opposed Bill Clinton. Many Democrats in 2000 believed George W. Bush had stolen the election in Florida.

When Obama won in 2008, Republicans set out to oppose anything he proposed, including efforts to deal with the deep recession he inherited. This year, Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell made Obama’s 2012 defeat his prime goal.

Other factors include the election of presidents without strong ties to Congress — especially to the opposition party — governors like Jimmy Carter and Bush and Obama, a relatively junior senator. The influence of outside groups increased, especially the ones paying the increased cost of campaigns.

Today’s lawmakers are every bit as smart and honorable as their predecessors, many more so. Twenty-first century Congresses are far more representative of the country than the predominantly white male bodies of the past.

But as the current debt ceiling fight indicates, many changes have made Congress less capable of dealing with the growing complexity of government.

Carl P. Leubsdorf is the former Washington bureau chief of the Dallas Morning News. Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.