Mr. Scott Goes to Washington

WASHINGTON, D.C. — I just spent the last five days in the nation’s capital with my Executive M.B.A. class from Suffolk University. We attended a business and public policy seminar that was organized by The Washington Campus, a consortium of several universities throughout the United States.

We explored issues including the political process, lobbying, budgetary policy, campaigns, trade and international policy. I agreed that all discussions were “on background,” so I cannot identify the specific officials with whom we spoke. But I can discuss what we learned — and it was a great deal.

Before I leave for Israel tomorrow, I wanted to share some of my experiences with my readers. I thought that I had already possessed an extensive knowledge of national politics, but I admit that I was wrong.

Congress as a Microcosm of America

If you think that Congress is comprised simply of Democrats and Republicans who form “Blue” and “Red” teams, you would be wrong. This impression, I’ll admit, is largely formed by the media — and it is incorrect. The media, when reporting on politics, focus on conflict because that is what sells newspapers.

However, the reality is much more complicated. The first priority of all politicians is to be re-elected, and that forces each congressman or senator to represent the views of his constituents as accurately as possible. Party identification, in many respects, is less of a priority — and representitives from similar disticts who are members of different political parties are more likely to vote similarly than differently.

A congressman from Manhattan will reflect socially liberal and an fiscally conservative views regardless of his party affiliation – because that is what his district wants. A Republican from Oregon will be more likely to in favor of environmental protections than a Democrat from the Detroit, one of America’s industrial centers. A senator from North Carolina will vote against tobacco taxes and regulations because that is what his constituents favor — and not because of contributions from tobacco lobbyists. (More on this later.)

However, things are not as idealistic as they seem. As we learned in a Congressional campaign simulator, there are competing choices and priorities that constantly face our elected representitives. Say a senator is a Republican. The Republican Party wants the senator to vote for a certain project even though that project will hurt the senator’s state. What should he do?

The easy answer, of course, is that the senator should buck the party leadership and vote to defend his state. However, if the senator does this on every issue, then he will alienate his party and never have the opportunity to pass other legislation that will benefit his state. If the senator constantly votes with the party and ignores his state, then he will surely lose at election time. So the senator must balance these competing priorities.

Still, Congress usually tends to reflect the United States. We have social liberals from the northeast, libertarians from the west, social conservatives from the south, and economic liberals from the midwest. We have elected officials that represent people of every race, religion, ethnicity and political view. And all of these competing worldviews and standpoints conflict during each and every vote. The end result, at least ideally, is that the final vote reflects the will of a majority of the American people.

Lobbyists as Good Guys?

Following the numerous scandals that have occurred in Washington, D.C. over the past decades (see here for a list), the American public understandably views lobbyists as a poison that is killing our democratic process. But is that a distorted picture? We listened to lobbyists as they defended themselves.

Yes, there are lobbyists for corporations and political viewpoints, and a common question from “ordinary Americans” is: “Who represents me?” The answer, as we learned, is “probably several lobbyists.” For example, I am a graduate student, a Jewish person, a marketing professional, and a (well, former) journalist. There are lobbyists for each of these concerns, and the same likely holds true for every single person in the United States. Every single person, organization, company, issue and affiliation has at least one lobbyist representing — or perhaps even advocating for or opposing – him in front of Congress. So the lobbyist industry, like Congress itself, are a microcosm of the diverse United States.

Secondly, lobbyists say that they provide valuable information to the legislative and executive branches of government. Government officials are very busy, and neither they nor their staffs have the time to research complex issues comprehensively. An individual lobbying firm, however, devotes itself to a single issue entirely. So they have a wealth of information and analysis to give to elected representitives that they can use to make decisions. In this view, who would you rather have recommend an environmental policy: an elected official who knows nothing about water pollution or a lobbying firm that studies that issue?

Thirdly, the effect of campaign contributions is largely overstated. Yes, lobbyists give money to politicians. But most people assume that this is an attempt to get a congressman to change a vote. In reality, lobbyists give money to politicians who already support their views in the first place. The money follows the ideas, not the other way around. Besides, as one lobbyist told us, these firms have an interest in acting ethically. No one wants to go to jail, and a lobbyist will lose his job the moment his ethics are called into question.

Signing Statements

A former Bush administration official who had worked on legislative issues discussed the operations of the White House, but I was more interested in his views on signing statements (when a president refuses to enforce certain laws passed by Congress or decides to interpret them in a different way). Here was the (admittedly biased) question I posed:

What is the Constitutional justification for the Executive Branch disregarding or altering Acts of Congress? Is it not the Judicial Branch — and not the Executive — that has the sole authority to interpret Acts of Congress?

The official, of course, did not give a direct and concise answer to my specific questions. He said that both the Legislative and Executive Branches will push for laws that support their preferred policies, and that this issue will ultimately be decided by the courts.

Iraq and the Middle East

We had the opportunity to discuss the war in Iraq with three different people. The first was a congressman who has traveled throughout the Middle East and reported to the White House on his observations. In one instance, this congressman said he reported to President Bush and Vice President Cheney, along with other senior officials.

A classmate of mine asked the congressman to describe the White House’s reaction to his thoughts. The congressmen said he was unable to give specific details out of respect for the frankness of the exchanges, but he did add that White House officials seem to be more interested in hearing evidence that confirms their policy proposals rather than listening to an objective analysis. The congressman predicted that the White House would soon withdraw troops from stable parts of Iraq, like the Kurdish region in the north, but he could not predict any other developments.

I asked the congressman to summarize and then opine on the Bush administration’s policy on Syria, Hamas and Hizbollah — all of which pose a threat to Israel this summer. The congressman’s view was that the White House does not really have a policy on these concerns because Iraq is the all-encompassing issue.

Later, on another day, we had a panel discussion (and debate) between Democratic and Republican operative on the issues of the day. I asked the first (again, biased) question:

The primary justification for the war in Iraq was that Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction posed a severe, imminent threat to the United States. This was the reasoning under which Congress authorized the use of force in Iraq, and all other justifications came later. As we all know now, Iraq posed no threat to the United States. So, I have two questions:

1. Is not the only logical conclusion, then, that our soldiers are dying for a mistake?

2. Why do you think we invaded Iraq?

The Democratic operative, perhaps surprisingly, stated that she supported the war in Iraq, as did most Democrats. But I was more interested in the Republican’s response. His initial response was that al-Qaeda is in Iraq and that the country “is a front in the War on Terror.” I quickly corrected him by stating that neither was true prior to the United States’ invasion. Then, the operative made a logical point: if the United States withdraws from Iraq, then al-Qaeda will spin that as a victory and use it to inspire other extremists and terrorists. He is correct, and this is why Iraq is such a difficult issue: We should never have invaded, but we cannot leave now. (I used to support a full withdrawal, but now I’m not sure.) So what do we do?

Neither operative, of course, answered my second question. I’m not sure anyone outside of President Bush’s inner circle knows the true answer.

“Democrat” and “Democratic”

A pet peeve of mine, mainly from a linguistics standpoint, has been the increasing tendancy of Republicans over the past decade to refer to the Democratic Party as the “Democrat Party” even though it is grammatically incorrect. I think it’s a cheap shot to score a few political points.

We met with the chief of staff to a longtime Republican senator to discuss the role his position serves in government. (Essentially, he’s the COO – he carries out all decisions made by the politician and runs the office.) But I wanted to ask whether this political tactic was indeed invented by Newt Gingrich. The chief of staff stated that Gingrich is not organized enough to institute such a change. (I doubt that.) Rather, one Republican misspoke in the past, and the Democrats were so annoyed that the GOP simply continued to call the party by the wrong name because the reaction on the left was so hilarious to them. I’m skeptical.

The Future Economy

Frequent readers of my blog know that I’m apprehensive about the future economic vitality of the United States. (See here and here and here.) When we listened to a speaker from the Federal Reserve and a former one from the Treasury Department, I asked them for their opinion.

The Federal Reserve official said he could not comment because the bank was currently studying those issues. But he did stay that the prior and current chairmen have routinely warned Congress and the White House about the dangers of the federal government’s mounting debt. The former Treasury official said that my fears were accurate and that it would be up to my generation to lobby the government to make major changes before it was too late. I don’t think I need to comment further.

The former Treasury official did provide the quote of the week in response to budget data put out by presidential administrations: “I wouldn’t believe them if their tounges were notarized.” It is so hard to analyze such a complex economic entity as the United States that nothing is entirely accurate. Moreover, politicians are under intense pressure to make the economy look good.

We did learn that the Federal Reserve faces a stark choice when it comes to raising and lowering interest rates: a high interest rate generally stops inflation while slowing economic growth while a low interest rate does the opposite. The question is when to do what. Throughout the world, central banks seem to be favoring a tight monetary policy — that is, a higher priority is placed on stopping inflation than on fostering economic growth. A slow economy is less bad than high inflation. However, some inflationary factors are largely outside the scope of the government. We’ll see what happens.

—

Well, this is my last post before I leave for Israel tomorrow. I could write forever about The Washington Campus experience, but I need to pack. I’ll see you in Tel Aviv.