The signing of the Constitution by Junius Brunus Stearns. Courtesy image

By JOHN BARTLIT
Los Alamos

The presidential impeachment proceedings had faults on display and served us well by turning our attention back to the nation’s founders. Republicans howled about unfair treatment by Democrats in the House.

Democrats howled about unfair treatment by Republicans in the Senate. Howls of the crowd were close to evenly split from start to finish. Neither party emphasized that both parties simply follow the rules the two parties have created for themselves in Congress.

Strangely, a majority of one in either chamber gives one party the lion’s share of the ruling power in that chamber. Even worse, the lion’s share of power is given to a single honcho in the party that has the majority in that chamber, however slim the majority. The harm from that monopolistic power needs more thoroughgoing debate among us.

‘Robert’s Rules Of Order’ Is A Gem Left On The Pathway
Earnest tussle has led our nation to succeed on its long path of government by the people. Constant tussle has its roots and its forms in features evolved in history.

Our nation’s founders pursued independence from England through protests and fearful debate among themselves. The founders would form a new government through further rounds of uneasy debate. Protest and prickly debate now stand firmly on the U.S. Constitution’s features of freedom of speech and freedom to assemble.

The founders supported civil protest and prickly debate in part because our nation was born of protest and prickly debate. As arranged for by the founders, protest and broad debate have been vital to ongoing progress—think how voting rights came to blacks and women. By the same means, protest and debate also brought prohibition and ended prohibition.

Another kit of tools shaping our nation has models that provide for debate to be ardent while still productive. These models were brought from England, where they had developed and proved their worth for centuries. This history is found in the introduction to the handbook, “Robert’s Rules of Order,” of which I will say more.

People in politics today, which includes all of us, are losing sight of the tight links between a working government by the people and the merits of protest joined with a breadth of debate. As this vision fades, democracy drifts. Choice parts of our history have grown fuzzy with disregard.

Party affiliations played no part in our nation’s founding nor in its early administrations. President George Washington had no party affiliation. The concerns were whether we could form a viable country. Instead of parties, the founders and early bills in Congress wrestled with groups having differing interests and views. The North and the South were interest groups with sharply opposing views on slavery. Another early issue was the fair design of representation. Large states and small states saw things very differently, as did urban interests and rural interests. The medium of resolution was debate, as best could be achieved. Today, people keep debating which people know nothing worth hearing.

Major Henry Robert, who wrote the first “Robert’s Rules of Order” graduated fourth in his class at West Point in 1857. He became skilled in engineering of waterways. He saw a societal need for effective debate outside of Congress. The first edition of “Robert’s Rules” was published in 1876. The army engineer took the rules then used in Congress and adjusted them for use by community organizations, such as church meetings, town councils and service groups. League of Women Voters members are trained in “Robert’s Rules.”

As stated in the handbook, the rules are based on a regard for the multiple rights that compete in earnest deliberations: namely, the rights of the majority; – of the minority, especially a strong minority, greater than one third; – of individual members; – of absentees; and – of all these together. The rules have served well in reaching useful decisions efficiently in all kinds of internal climates. Internal climates can range from one of great harmony to hardened or impassioned division of opinion.

Meanwhile, in 1880, U.S. Congress began moving farther from “Robert’s Rules.” New use of rules gave more power to the leader of the majority party in each house, which means less power for the minority party. “More power” means power to assign committee chairs, assign committee members, and assign bills to committees, which includes the power to stop bills from being heard.

Both parties have had turns being the majority party in each house and in both houses of Congress. Either party in the majority assumes the majority winner rightly gets the lion’s share of power. Only the minority party and its fans see why “Robert’s Rules of Order” would serve much better. So, the majority’s perks stand guard against debate.

Our nation was born in independent debating. Today, party rulings keep a tight rein on debate, the precious tool that unlocks government by the people.

First, Revive Real Debate Within Your Own Party
Media attention is lavished on the ferocious distaste for discourse between the two big political parties. Each party shines its spotlight on its “enemies” to show how they wreck everything. Eyes slowly adjust to the glaring arc light. Meanwhile, stealthy business in each party goes on away from crowds … where lights are dim.

Each party takes steps to impede debate between the parties. Almost unnoticed are the additional steps that each party takes to impede debate within its own party. Where these steps lead is a rare subject of debate. Till now.

Think about the expanding use of loyalty pledges in each party. Rich donors and party officials ask candidates in their party to sign pledges binding them to vote a certain way on certain issues. The pledges aim to build party purity on issues and to eliminate the power of the largest bloc of registered voters, namely Independents. (Pause to think why the Independent bloc, the largest of any, grows larger.) In any case, the pledge seeks to stop further ideas about an issue, a step that cuts off the founding strength of our democracy.

Loyalty pledges in each party go hand in hand with the imperious rules of Congress that were conceived jointly by both parties. The squirrelly rules give control of the agenda to a legislative post held by the majority party in each house, no matter how slim the majority. Imagine the chaos if this alien ritual infected your town council. My column has explored the history of “Robert’s Rules of Order,” the gem that guards minority rights along with majority rights.

How might the matching ills in each party be remedied? “Matching ills” means similar ills in tactics, not similar ills of policy. Certainly nothing can be done through discourse between today’s parties, which has been squashed shut by common consent.

Where to start, you ask. No one expects to see change grow from pleading why the worse party should stop using loyalty pledges. But you can complain to your own party to stop using the same tactics. In other words, start with that brave old folk remedy, “Physician, heal thyself.” Folk cures have proved useful for a long time. Your favorite party also pursues the other foul scheme each party uses to avoid the risk of debating issues. We all know gerrymandering. Big party boosters use every means to keep from having to test policy ideas in exacting debate.

Meanwhile out in the bustling political forum, the practice of debate continues to ratchet up in rancor at the same time it dwindles away in function. What gives?

What I see in the political forum is this. I see the leading points from each camp focus on vices of “enemy” culprits. I see a contest over which party spreads the worse contagions. These two topics make up the largest part of what people take for “debate.” A step higher, I see debating of which party is the better party in all aspects. More rarely, I hear some certain issue used as the reason to stick entirely with one party or the other. Such an issue might be environmental regulation, the economy, immigration rules, or the middle class, all of which are vital to a thriving nation.

The most useful debate in shortest supply today deals with substantive pros and cons of a government policy proposal, as pursued by pairs of keen debaters. Every worthwhile proposal for dealing with a major issue has both pros and cons. The purpose of real debate is to shine light on the pros and cons of a proposal and tote up the plus against the minus. This concept is on life support in each party.

The mere refocus on pros and cons would reteach the basics of policy design. Our nation has strengths to build on to replace fractured discourse. Particulars show how.

Thoroughgoing Debate Would Muster The Pros And Cons
Lincoln at Gettysburg forever enshrined the nation’s founding “four score and seven years ago.” Since the Civil War, our nation has endured for nearly three times as long as it had up till then. How well has government by the people stood the test of time?

A flimsy test of prolonged good governance is in campaign slogans, party flyers, or talk-show opinions. These handouts aim to boost parties; they are designed to promote a selling point for one party above the balance of blessings. The best and broadest test hides in crowds from afar, who individually look for chances to be in the U.S. rather than waiting for life to improve in their homelands. From all angles, outlanders weigh the blessings and the problems in the U.S. and crowds decide to come. Why do outlanders see what they see?

This column has explored our nation’s historic provisions for debate and how debate led many advancements, while parties shifted about. I contrasted “Robert’s Rules of Order” with the rules used in Congress, which give the lion’s share of power to the majority party, however slim the majority. I turned then to the steady growth in registered Independents, a bloc that is now larger than Republicans or Democrats. Voters in all blocs are put off, when it hurts, by the rules conceived in Congress that cut out debate on “enemy” bills. Each party has its answer to voters: “Make us the lion, however slender.” Each party has won and lost the lion’s share of power numerous times. All the while, debate steadily withers.

Debates come in two basic styles—party style and classical—and blends of the two. Party style “debate” spends barrels of ink on personal flaws in “enemy” icons. Parties recite only the gains or only the losses from a proposal, as if mixed pros and cons were irrational.

Classical debate is done largely by high school and college debaters. Debate coaches explain the training. Coaches write: “It is key to plan what you do in training sessions. Knowledge-building activities are important. Good debaters always have a wealth of knowledge to share. They are aware of what’s happening around the world and often train by mapping out the pros and cons of government policies, so that they are able to analyze faster.”

Classic debaters are forced to learn and test the pros and cons of policy issues. To achieve this end, a debating contest starts by drawing lots to decide which debaters defend a policy and which attack the policy. Serious debate is the business of pursuing the facts on all sides, for and against.

Public debating today is a force of parties, whose honchos speak to cameras. Party style “debate” is chiefly a contest of ads. Classical debate is a contest of knowledge for and against a proposal and the logic of choices. Occasions when a bill is debated in Congress bring a patchwork of knowledge and ads.

Decisions are shaped best by testing the pros and cons. The nation’s founders took this path. The crowds reaching here take this path. Yet, the settled rules in Congress allow a majority of one in either chamber to choose the make-up of committees, the chairs of committees, and choose what bills get heard or not heard (no debate) in that chamber. That last choice kills debate like a silver bullet from a smoking gun.

“Robert’s Rules” are built around “motions.” A classic debate also debates a “motion.” I propose a topic to test the benefits of debate itself. Motion: “The people are poorly served when a majority of legislators gives such mighty clout to a titled member.” A coin toss would decide which student debaters argue for the motion and which against.

Democracy has an urgent need to revive the historical function of debate. It could begin as ably as a training session with a good debate team. A well-known voters group was formed in 1920, after women won the right to vote. This ready resource is constantly teaching the basic tools of democracy to those left behind by turns.

We the people need to revive the strengths of democracy that are well taught by the League of Women Voters.