Thursday, July 15, 2010

Executive Branch Nominations

Norm Ornstein wrote a good column this week for Roll Call pleading for a halt to the GOP practice of blocking executive branch nominations.  He makes the point, and I want to underscore this, about how recent all this is. As Ornstein says, there used to be a "norm that a president is entitled to his choices for executive branch posts unless there is some huge and significant problem."  Instead of that, we now have two problems: first, that the out-party has traded in "huge and significant problem" for "we can find some quote to take out of context," and, second and even worse, that Republicans have decided to delay executive branch appointments even in cases in which they have no objection at all. What's more, those out-party tactics to slow nominations are piled on to a system already overburdened by far too much vetting. 

Why have things come to this?  As far as the Republican strategy is concerned, I see three possible reasons.  Ornstein suggests that it's about "preventing them from getting into their offices for as long as possible."  Kevin Drum counters that it's really about blocking other things: "the main reason for such routine obstruction is simple: it eats up floor time."  Me?  I think it's more pointless than that; I think it's a combination of outside pressure that craven Republicans are terrified of opposing (seeing the fate of Bob Bennett), and their interpretation of the events of 1993-1994, which they took to be evidence that mindlessly opposing everything was the key to winning the House and Senate. 

Basically, I think that this is a mistake all around.  .  The "floor time" argument is, in my view, overstated; instead of chewing up floor time on low-level nominees, what the Democrats have done is either leave them in limbo or eventually cut deals to bring them up quickly, generally by voice vote.  It's a distraction for the Senate majority, yes, but not as far as I can see one that's derailed anything more important.  As far as just delaying these nominees from taking their offices for a while, it's hard for me to see much of an advantage to Republicans from that.  Certainly not much of an electoral advantage: if the NLRB processes fewer cases, or if regulation writing at some department moves more slowly, that's not going to net Republicans any significant number of votes in November.  Jonathan Chait says, "Electoral politics is inherently competitive. In the long run, you can't rely on norms to prevent parties form using the rules to their advantage."  But governance is not inherently zero-sum, and the overwhelming number of these delays have much more to do with governance, I think, than with electoral politics.

Ornstein joins many of us in noting that the most significant delays over the last two years have been mostly self-inflicted, with Obama very slow to nominate anyone for several critical positions. Some of this, I think, is strictly Obama's fault.  Some of it, however, is structural.  So I'll repeat here my call for much less vetting (by the president and Congress) of executive branch nominees, and my suggestion that a commission be appointed to draft new guidelines for streamlining presidential appointments. 

Meanwhile, the most direct cure for GOP obstruction is presidential action: the more Obama acts as if getting nominees appointed and confirmed is a priority (and one that he'll use recess appointments for if necessary), the less it's going to be worth it for Republicans to obstruct everyone.  It seems, as one would expect, to work: after his first round of recess appointments this spring, Republicans started off by complaining but then quietly cleared most of the noncontroversial selections stuck on the Senate calendar. 

6 comments:

  1. Governance is not inherently zero-sum, but in certain cases it can be. I'd imagine that the average GOP congressperson would be happiest if there was no NLRB--for them, having the NLRB hear fewer cases counts as a net benefit.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If you really believe that the party in power is a cabal bent on destroying the Republic, then a nominee being a Democrat is per se a "huge and significant problem".

    There aren't 40 Senators who believe that, of course, but there are a couple who do, or have staffers who do, and let them do all the paperwork. And the Senate runs on unanimous consent....

    ReplyDelete
  3. Worse, they've inspired GOP members in other bodies to do the same. In Michigan, Governor Granholm (a Democrat) has made about two dozen appointments since March that will fill vacancies at the end of the year - I think 26, to be exact - and the GOP majority is rejecting every single one. They haven't raised a principled objection to a single appointment (and some of the nominees are even Republicans); the only reason they've given is that this is the last year of her term, so she shouldn't be allowed to make any appointments that will carry over into the next administration... Despite the fact that every past governor did just that, with no previous objections.

    It's the Republicans complaining the loudest about how "nothing gets done in Lansing," and yet they are the ones actively halting governance.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Really? Your solution to government inability to get things done is... a commission? Isn't that almost too ridiculous to parody?

    As far as just delaying these nominees from taking their offices for a while, it's hard for me to see much of an advantage to Republicans from that. Certainly not much of an electoral advantage: if the NLRB processes fewer cases, or if regulation writing at some department moves more slowly, that's not going to net Republicans any significant number of votes in November.

    But it is going to net Republicans fewer NLRB decisions and fewer regulations, no? Why are you looking at it electorally rather than substantively?

    ReplyDelete
  5. A question: what happens when Dems are in the minority? Do you have any sense they'll follow this precedent? And if they did, what would be the reaction?

    ReplyDelete
  6. The current version of the Republican Party is (among other things)(a) convinced that making Obama (or any Democratic incumbent) look bad will be good for them come election time;(b) wedded to the talking point that "big" government doesn't work; and (c) determined to make the super-wealthy even wealthier, by any means necessary: the cutting of taxes, the gutting of regulations, the absence of regulators . . .

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.