opinion
Battalion/Pag;
January 12,
Phil Gramm
Leaders care more for party
than competent government
Editor’s Note: Last week the Democratic
leadership in Congress stripped Rep.
Phil Gramm, D-Lexas, of his preferred
post on the House Budget Committee
because he supported President
Reagan’s economic package. That deci
sion prompted Gramm to resign from
office, switch parties and seek re-election
as a Republican. The following is a com
mentary in favor of Gramm’s decision,
written by a Texas A&M political science
professor.
Pro
by Robert Bernstein
United Press International
House leaders recently stripped Phil
Gramm of his seat on the budget committee.
Their action has (at least temporarily) dep
rived the committee of a valuable member.
Worse than that, their show of power tells the
nation that its leaders are more interested in
party loyalty than in competent government.
The leaders have argued that their action
was necessary in order to stop the flow of
“secrets” to the Republican side. They have
likened the Budget Committee to a football
game: They felt justified in ousting a player
from the huddle because he had revealed
strategy to the opponents.
The trouble with their analogy is that it
views the parties as teams fighting against
each other. They would do better to think of
the committee, and indeed the whole Con
gress, as one team with a common goal. Espe
cially when it comes to long-term economic
programs, we all win or lose together.
Unfortunately, House Democratic leaders
are not looking at the common goal of govern
ment. Instead, by punishing Gramm, they are
attempting to tighten the ranks of Democrats
in order to prepare for war on the Republi
cans.
House Speaker Tip O’Neill has given
warning that he intends to lead a crusade
against the President’s programs. But it’s dif
ficult to lead a crusade when one of your
best-known knights is imploring the troops to
desert the cause. If Gramm had muted his
opposition, if he had had less press coverage,
if the Democratic leadership had had a more
flexible, middle-of-the-road position, Gramm
could have been tolerated. As it was, Gramm
had to be punished for the sake of the cru
sade.
That’s one of the problems with crusades:
They limit your flexibility. If you believe that
you have seen the “one true path,” that your
opponents are “turncoats” or “neo-Nazis” or
“enemies of the working man,” it’s hard for
you ever tojoin with them in a common enter
prise. Gramm, of course, wasn’t the only
Democrat to deviate from the “true path,” but
the leaders hardly could afford to punish all
of the deviants. What they needed was to
make an example of the one getting the most
publicity.
There is danger in moving towards a sys
tem of ideologically based parties, a system in
which each party insists upon “discipline”
from its members. Some people hold out such
a system as an ideal toward which we ought to
strive. Many of them now are applauding the
decision to punish Gramm as a move in that
direction.
But European politics should give us fair
warning of what that kind of party system can
produce — violent shifts in government poli
cies, sharp conflict between social classes, in
stability and little room for compromise. We
are blessed with a party system that promotes
continuity, stability and compromise — one
that minimizes social cleavage and allows the
formation and dissolution of coalitions within
the Legislature without bringing down the
government.
A move to make our parties more like the
European parties is a move in the wrong dire
ction.
The action against Gramm is not just a
move to strengthen party discipline, it is also a
refusal to recognize the importance of compe
tence in a representative.
Gramm is a nationally known economist.
The Budget Committee needs men of his
stature. It is the committee where his exper
tise best can serve his country. His advice
should be heard by that committee. By re
moving him from the Budget Committee,
the leadership is telling us it values unthink
ing party loyalty and ideological conformity
more than it values competence.
Fortunately, Gramm is likely to be back on
the Budget Committee in less than a month.
He almost certainly will be returned to the
House in the February special election, and
the Republicans will hold open a committee
seat for him. It is doubtful that the punish
ment dealt out by the House leadership will be
detrimental to Gramm.
Nevertheless, the leadership is being very
short-sighted in preferring conformity to
competence. Government programs charac
teristically have consequences that are not in
tended by their proponents, consequences
that often worsen the problems they were de
signed to solve. To see and publicize the unin
tended consequences of proposed govern
ment programs, we need keen minds in the
Congress.
Only by electing our best people and put
ting them in positions where their expertise
can be used, can we begin to cope with the
massive load we have placed on our govern
ment.
Making party loyalty or ideological confor
mity more important than competence is a
misordering of priorities.
Dr. Bernstein is an associate professor of poli
tical science at Texas A&M University.
Arrogant style and disloyalty,
not votes, results in dismissal
by Jon R. Bond
United Press International
Although Phil Gramm was elected as a
Democrat to represent the 6th Congressional
District, he consistently has acted like a Re
publican. On party votes in 1981, Gramm
voted with other Democrats only 20 percent
of the time. That’s lower support for his party
than any other member of the Texas delega
tion. He voted with Republicans 77 percent of
the time. Gramm’s support of the Republican
Party in Congress is higher than that of the
average Republican.
Gramm claims that his support of Republi
can proposals is what the people of the district
want. But his extreme voting behavior puts
him at odds with some Texas Democrats.
The 1982 Brazos County Democratic Con
vention — Gramm’s home county — adopted
a resolution asking him to vote with his party
more often.
Although Gramm’s voting record is ex
tremely out of step with Texas Democrats and
the Democratic House leadership, his remov
al from the Budget Committee was not pun
ishment for voting with Republicans. Both
parties welcome politicians with a wide range
of views. Acceptance of diverse viewpoints is
necessary if congressmen are to effectively
represent their constituencies. Acts of party
discipline in Congress, therefore, are rare.
Parties do not discipline members for merely
voting in accordance with their principles or
their constituency.
Rather, it takes extreme defiance — sup
porting the opposition’s candidate in an elec
tion, or repeatedly opposing the party leader
ship on procedural issues — before a member
is punished.
Con
Gramm’s case is no exception. He was not
punished because of how he voted. There are
several House Democrats who voted against
other Democrats and with President Reagan
as often as Gramm. Not one was punished.
Gramm’s support of Republican proposals,
however, went well beyond voting. He chal
lenged the Democratic leadership in the
media, and took advantage of his committee
seat to provide the opposition with inside in
formation that helped them defeat Democra
tic budget proposals.
Commerce Committee — a very powerful
committee. Instead, he was denied reappoint
ment to the Budget Committee.
Because House members are eligible to
serve on the Budget Committee for a max
imum of six years, Gramm would have ro
tated off in another term or two anyway.
Thus, the removal was a relatively mild form
of punishment that would not have severely
limited his ability to represent his district.
If he really wanted to represent “district”
interest, he should have remained a Democrat
and kept his seat on the Energy and Com
merce Committee. Because the 6th District is
an oil-producing area, membership on Ener
gy and Commerce is much more important to
Gramm’s constituency than membership on
the Budget Committee. And if he had not
switched to the minority party, Gramm prob
ably would have accumulated enough senior
ity to be subcommittee chairman in a few
more years.
Gramm’s argument that removing him
from the budget committee has denied his
constituents effective representation, there
fore, has a hollow ring. Why would someone
with a sincere concern for the interests of his
constituency give up the prospect of a leader
ship position on a committee of direct rele
vance to his district in return for minority
party status on a committee of less direct rele
vance to his district?
I suspect that a partial answer is that the
Budget Committee is more likely to provide a
forum to gain national attention. If the dis
trict has been denied effective representation,
it’s not because the Democratic leadership dis
ciplined a disloyal member. Rather, it is the
result of Gramm putting his personal interest
and radical ideology ahead of his constituents.
The argument that Gramm’s expertise as
an economist is needed on the Budget Com
mittee is not persuasive. Congress has a staff
of excellent economists who provide informa
tion and advice. But economic expertise is not
helpful in making political decisions about
political priorities in the budget.
What is needed on the Budget Committee
is someone with an open mind who is willing
to weigh conflicting goals in a political process
of bargaining and compromise. Dogmatic
ideologues, even those with economic train
ing, do not help the Budget Committee make
responsible decisions..
The disciplinary action taken by the Demo-
ci ats does not threaten to move the American
party system toward the European model of
ideological parties with strong discipline.
Democrats in the House are — and continue
to be — more ideologically diverse and less
disciplined than Republicans. Support for
conservative positions among Democrats on
the Budget Committee in 1981 ranged from a
high of 99 percent to a low of 12 percent.
Without Gramm the range is from 76 to 12
percent.
I he range of conservative support among
Republicans on the Budget Committee, on
the other hand, is about half as great — from
99 to 61 percent. We find a similar pattern if
we examine the party discipline dimension.
Among Democrats on the Budget Commit
tee, party support ranged widely from 88 per
cent to 20 percent (88 to 40 percent if Gramm
is excluded). But Republicans on the Budget
Committee were much more disciplined,
ranging Ironi 89 to 67 percent party support.
I he Democratic leadership was right to dis
cipline Gramm. I hey didn’t do anything the
Republicans wouldn’t have done in a similar
situation. As one of Gramm’s constituents, I
am glad that he is finally in the Republican
Party where he belonged from the start of his
political career. The way he went about mak
ing the switch, however, seems to have been
designed to attract the most media attention
tor the longest possible time.
But what better way to lay the foundation
tor a Senate race in two years? You can’t buy
that kind of exposure. 7
Dr. Bond is an associate professor of political
science at I exas A&M University.
It was Gramm’s arrogant style and disloyal
ty, not his votes, that resulted in his punish
ment. I’m amazed that so many of his consti
tuents are unhappy about disciplinary action
to punish such behavior. I’m also a bit sur
prised that the opposing team is so anxious to
accept such a player.
Despite his extreme disloyalty, the Demo
cratic leadership did not impose a severe pun
ishment on Gramm.
He was not kicked out of the Democratic
Caucus; he was not stripped of his seniority;
he was not removed from the Energy and
the small society
by Brickman
PAr-s, -
A
A
-EL
□ □
00
D
THAT
^v^fZ>r<2Me=
IT TO
81961 King Features Syndicate. Inc World rights reservod
/Q-/7
Berry s World
"You're looking at a private sector ‘lame
duck T’
United ]
A1RIF
rvous Pr;
ty pro
ews th:
re from ;
■II be deni
PACs can make
a big difference
fcking
oductive
[The on<
I the oik
il don’t ki
■ who as!
d Mom
3und thi
u
by Clay F. Richards
s.r » r., ■ Press International
WASHING! ON — Much has been written
about the big conservative political action
committees that spend their money blatently
and controversially.
The best known — or at least most noto
rious — is the National Conservative Political
Action Committee, which spent $9 million in
the last election cycle to defeat liberal mem
bers of Congress. 1 he only one on their target
list who lost was Sen. Howard Cannon, D-
Ney., who had a lot of problems in addition to
NCPAC and likely would have lost anyway.
gave the most money to candidates-
though they had the most to spend,
was the special interest groups.
The Realtors Political Action Con
gave the most money to candidates,
non, followed by the American Medical
cation) Political action committeewtf
million and the United Auto VVorkflj
Si.5 million.
Also in the top 10 were matH
teachers, bankers, home buiders,
ducers, automobile and truck dealers!
AFL-CIO.
o
Those 10 groups represent a
United
lUSTD
>enalizt
K>f of li
when
irney
;d.
[State las
|o be cc
the major lobbying efforts in Washin. rsurance.
Altogether, PACs spent SI83 million dur
ing the 1982 congressional election cycle —
up nearly 50 percent from what they spent in
the previous two year campaign period. The
amount of money spent and the rapid growth
of PACs has raised alarms by good-
government groups over the impact of special
interest money on Congress.
law they cannot individually give mott
$5,000 to any one candidate. But the 2 _
not prohibit 10 unions from giving 1
each or 10 agricu 11urerelated groups
doing the same for their candidates
florists
But the PAC situation may well be a case
where the tip of the iceberg may be of much
more concern than what is under the water
Theup of the $183 million iceberg is the
S / 0 million — about 43 percent — of the PAC
money that is given directly to candidates.
But the $70 million PACs gave directly to
candidates represented a significant part of
the $300 million Common Cause estimated
was spent by candidates for the House and
Senate in 1982.
It was not the big conservative groups that
In the most expensive Senate race!
country this year, Republican PeJ e
spent $5.1 million and Democrat Com
Brown Jr. spent $3.9 million. YVilsontf
$816,0(j() in PAC money, more than*
else in the country, and he won.
This case — and the hundreds ofj
campaigns where PACs madeabigt* 1 ^
— does not mean Wilson is beholden
cial interests. It does suggest they "
access to office when they want toarg |
legislation.
1
a
And it means in a close race as in
( i
/ \iiv 1 11 iiie<ti 1^ 111 , £«
the PACs and not the people may |
the difference.
The Battalion
USPS 045 360
Member ot
Texas Press Association
Soythwest Journalism Conference
t.ditoi . . Diana Sultenl nss
Managing Editor C.an Barker
Associate Editor Denise Richter
City Editor Hope E. Paasch
Assistant City Editor Bcverh Hamilton
Sports Editor. Join, Wagner
Entertainment Editor Colette Hmeltings
Assistant Entertainment Editor. . . Diane Yount
News Editors. . . Jennifer Carr, Elaine Engstrom.
Beverly Hamilton, Jan Werner.
St if f w. ;. , Rebeca Zimmermann
Stall W. „ers . . Maureen Ca. mode. Erank
Christlieb, Patrice Koranek. Inin,
Lopez, Robert McClohon, Ann
Ramsbottom, Kim Schmidt Patti
Scltw terzke, Angel Stokes. Ti ace\
(' i- Taylor, |oe I indcl
Cartoonist • • .Un Swane. Cl n, ] have,
Graphic Artist P m, St * U
Photographers Fishor.'i^tXm
Ronald W. Emerson. Octavio
Oarcia, Rob Johnston. Irene Mees
Editorial Policy
autlior. a,.d do no, nece^„i/y reprerc,,, opj.Z'nl Jl
r /acw
Texas A&M University administrators (
hers, or of the Hoard ot Regents _
I as a laborator) "'’1
The Battalion also serves
* iic. ittiiitiinj 1! » v .7 «*•'
for students in reporting, editing and p ° /a
ses within the Department of Corntnun 1 ^ ^ J
Questions or comments concerning
mattci should be directed to the editor
Letters Policy
Letters to the Editor should not exvee ^
length, and are subject to being cut n 1
I he editorial stall reserves the 1 igl’ 1 l( '. e (i
style and length, but will make every e>
the author’s intent. Eat h loiter must A
show the address and phone number o
Columns and guest editorials are a s ° j!
are not subject to the same length con ^ lra |() [L
Address all inquiries and corrcspondcn J
I he Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald, ./Jill
versity, College Station, TX 77843, or pi' 0
2611.
r Texas 1
The Battalion is published daily ‘'V*jn<l
lall and spring semesters, except for no' ^
nation periods. Mail subscriptions are 5 ■ (
5.25 ner school vear and $35 per u
ter, $33.25 per school year and $35 pe r
tising rates furnished on request. , yd
Our address: The Battalion. 216 ^
Building, Texas A&M University, Colleg
77843.
United Press International is en ti llecl .
the use for reproduction of all news < lisp a ^ (1{r |
to it. Rights of reproduction of all other
reserved. <j, a ii
Second class postage paid at Colleg c
77843.
■ ' w’.vTw ivi .' ; T T "■'•VC- 'fT'TT K/ ''TTav’-:-. :• \r wTvv ... . vV