3 ms·

> In my opinion, the House and Senate rules are so complicated that only a few people can understand them. The procedures are used to gather power in the hands

> In my opinion, the House and Senate rules are so complicated that only a few people can understand them. The procedures are used to gather power in the hands of a few, which undermines their original purpose: to facilitate orderly debate and empower all the members equally. I disagree, and so does Surdy, as noted extensively in the latter part of this article. Congressional power is gathered and perpetuated primarily through means outside Congressional procedure like fundraising, PAC distributions, control of party apparatus, committee assignments, endorsements, PR, etc. Members of Congress have quite a lot of procedural power but choose not to exercise it in the face of these other incentives. This is not a view specific to Surdy; other parliamentary experts like James Wallner sound the same tune. Those incentives also therefore dominate the attention of most staff, lobbyists, journalists, etc who make a living supporting, influencing, and covering members of Congress. This is the primary reason so few bother to put in the work to do what Surdy does. I don’t mean to minimize the intelligence and hard work of Surdy, which is impressive. He may have a significant advantage by being so far from the Beltway bubble that he can ignore all that politics stuff above and just sink into the pure procedure. He’s also free to tweet. There are other people in DC with at least the same level of parliamentary command, but generally they make a living by providing that expertise privately to those willing to pay for it.

lupire 3y ago
Who pays to partliamentary expertise?
- pyuser583 3y ago
  This is a serious question. I assume many entities pay for ‘inside scoops’ and lobbying. But who really needs to know the ins and outs of congressional procedure?
  - ngcc_hk 3y ago
    People who play the game, people who study it (as it will evolve over time) and public who may need to know whether these rules affecting them possibly and more likely by independent rule studier.
unethical_ban 3y ago
I don't know if what you said contradicts the parent comment. The parent complains that congressional rules don't favor equality in its membership; you say that doesn't matter because lobbying and committee assignments mean more. My reading is both could be true.
- readyman 3y ago
  Both can be true, but the structural forces (described by snowwrestler) predominate the influence of parliamentary expertise. Parliamentarianism is a game in itself, and it's only effective insofar as actual politics are being done, which is rarely the case on the floor of the US congress, which is more like a theatre stage where politics have usually been preempted by economics relations.
readyman 3y ago
A fine structural analysis
pjc50 3y ago
As readyman says, these are two very well expressed, both valid views of how the system operates. There's a system of rules, and there's a power structure. The formal rules operate almost all of the time, and can be an interesting sport to follow. But there's a lot in that "almost". The moment a mob comes through the window with guns, the rules become irrelevant and the power and loyalty structure becomes extremely important. And even in the everyday there are attempts by all parties to simply end-run round congressional process, at State, presidential, or Supreme Court level.
dschuma 3y ago
I think you are missing the connection between the rules and the maintenance of power -- both the chamber rules and the caucus/conference rules and arguing there's a disjunction in my and Surdy's vies on power. Let's start by analyzing how power works in the chamber. Let's use the House as an example. The three major pillars of power in the House are: (1) control of the floor, (2) control of committee assignments, and (3) fundraising/candidate recruitment. 1. Control of the floor is largely managed through the House Rules committee, the members of which are solely appointed by the Democratic and Republican leaders. This contrasts with other committees, whose members are appointed by the parties via the steering committees. From where does leadership derive this power? The chamber rules and the caucus/conference rules. (Suspensions go at the direction of the Speaker, and discharge petitions are rare enough to discount.) 2. While some committees are appointed by the Democratic/Republican leadership, most committee members are selected through the steering committees. When you read the party rules, you can see that steering committee membership is largely chosen by the Democratic and Republican leaders. Because leadership dominates the steering committees, they dominate how those folks are chosen. And, rarely, they will remove people from committees for not following their leadership. 3. What controls the head of the House and Senate fundraising entities? Those folks are appointed by operation of the party rules, which again gives most of the power to leadership. Plus in the modern era, the party leaders are the heavy fundraisers. And they play a significant role in candidate selection. This wasn't always the case, and you can skim my [summary](https://firstbranchcenter.org/eras-of-control-of-the-house-of-representatives/ https://firstbranchcenter.org/eras-of-control-of-the-house-o...) of eras of control in the House to see how it has been organized different. James Wallner, who you cite, and I agree a lot. We both think it is important for the factions in the chambers to be able to express themselves. The current incentives for party leadership is to keep their team together and to split the opposing team. What that means is that they've crafted rules and norms designed to keep their team together and prevent defections. That's why most members don't make use of the procedural rules on the floor -- because it's not in their interest to do so. They feign helplessness. When you read the article, it first quotes me, and then him, making a point that Wallner would also agree with. "But, Schuman said, something of a “rules revolution” has begun to brew in Congress lately, with House Republicans ousting their own speaker and defeating several procedural motions, while their Senate counterparts have freelanced on foreign aid and military nominations, bucking Mitch McConnell. Surdy, for one, views many of these developments as welcome changes: His tweets often feature critiques of Congress’ centralized power (and how it is unquestioningly reported). He likes to note that leaders — by the rules alone — are mostly figureheads; it is only years of members following the pack, and choosing not to learn their own power, that have made the status quo so rigid." Let me repeat it: power is centralized (at the top) and the members defer to it. The members choose not to learn their own power, IMO, because there's a collection action problem (which is described in the article). So far, only the Freedom Caucus-aligned folks have been willing to break that mold in the modern era. One powerful committee chair (this was a while ago) said: “If I let you write the substance and you let me write the procedure, I’ll screw you every time.” The process dominates the results, and the process currently is designed to empower those at the top.

lupire 3y ago

Who pays to partliamentary expertise?

pyuser583 3y ago
This is a serious question. I assume many entities pay for ‘inside scoops’ and lobbying. But who really needs to know the ins and outs of congressional procedure?
- ngcc_hk 3y ago
  People who play the game, people who study it (as it will evolve over time) and public who may need to know whether these rules affecting them possibly and more likely by independent rule studier.

unethical_ban 3y ago

I don't know if what you said contradicts the parent comment. The parent complains that congressional rules don't favor equality in its membership; you say that doesn't matter because lobbying and committee assignments mean more. My reading is both could be true.

readyman 3y ago
Both can be true, but the structural forces (described by snowwrestler) predominate the influence of parliamentary expertise. Parliamentarianism is a game in itself, and it's only effective insofar as actual politics are being done, which is rarely the case on the floor of the US congress, which is more like a theatre stage where politics have usually been preempted by economics relations.

readyman 3y ago

A fine structural analysis

pjc50 3y ago

As readyman says, these are two very well expressed, both valid views of how the system operates. There's a system of rules, and there's a power structure. The formal rules operate almost all of the time, and can be an interesting sport to follow. But there's a lot in that "almost". The moment a mob comes through the window with guns, the rules become irrelevant and the power and loyalty structure becomes extremely important. And even in the everyday there are attempts by all parties to simply end-run round congressional process, at State, presidential, or Supreme Court level.

dschuma 3y ago

I think you are missing the connection between the rules and the maintenance of power -- both the chamber rules and the caucus/conference rules and arguing there's a disjunction in my and Surdy's vies on power. Let's start by analyzing how power works in the chamber. Let's use the House as an example. The three major pillars of power in the House are: (1) control of the floor, (2) control of committee assignments, and (3) fundraising/candidate recruitment. 1. Control of the floor is largely managed through the House Rules committee, the members of which are solely appointed by the Democratic and Republican leaders. This contrasts with other committees, whose members are appointed by the parties via the steering committees. From where does leadership derive this power? The chamber rules and the caucus/conference rules. (Suspensions go at the direction of the Speaker, and discharge petitions are rare enough to discount.) 2. While some committees are appointed by the Democratic/Republican leadership, most committee members are selected through the steering committees. When you read the party rules, you can see that steering committee membership is largely chosen by the Democratic and Republican leaders. Because leadership dominates the steering committees, they dominate how those folks are chosen. And, rarely, they will remove people from committees for not following their leadership. 3. What controls the head of the House and Senate fundraising entities? Those folks are appointed by operation of the party rules, which again gives most of the power to leadership. Plus in the modern era, the party leaders are the heavy fundraisers. And they play a significant role in candidate selection. This wasn't always the case, and you can skim my [summary](https://firstbranchcenter.org/eras-of-control-of-the-house-of-representatives/ https://firstbranchcenter.org/eras-of-control-of-the-house-o...) of eras of control in the House to see how it has been organized different. James Wallner, who you cite, and I agree a lot. We both think it is important for the factions in the chambers to be able to express themselves. The current incentives for party leadership is to keep their team together and to split the opposing team. What that means is that they've crafted rules and norms designed to keep their team together and prevent defections. That's why most members don't make use of the procedural rules on the floor -- because it's not in their interest to do so. They feign helplessness. When you read the article, it first quotes me, and then him, making a point that Wallner would also agree with. "But, Schuman said, something of a “rules revolution” has begun to brew in Congress lately, with House Republicans ousting their own speaker and defeating several procedural motions, while their Senate counterparts have freelanced on foreign aid and military nominations, bucking Mitch McConnell. Surdy, for one, views many of these developments as welcome changes: His tweets often feature critiques of Congress’ centralized power (and how it is unquestioningly reported). He likes to note that leaders — by the rules alone — are mostly figureheads; it is only years of members following the pack, and choosing not to learn their own power, that have made the status quo so rigid." Let me repeat it: power is centralized (at the top) and the members defer to it. The members choose not to learn their own power, IMO, because there's a collection action problem (which is described in the article). So far, only the Freedom Caucus-aligned folks have been willing to break that mold in the modern era. One powerful committee chair (this was a while ago) said: “If I let you write the substance and you let me write the procedure, I’ll screw you every time.” The process dominates the results, and the process currently is designed to empower those at the top.