Partisanship in the House

I find it a little surprising, but not so dismaying as the Washington Post does, that the incoming House Democratic leadership has decided to try to pass its "100 hours" legislation without holding committee hearings or allowing Republican alternatives to be taken to the floor. Back in January 1995, as House Republicans have pointed out, the new Republican majority at least went through the motions of holding committee hearings on its agenda. And it's a fair point that at least one of the Democrats' proposals, government negotiation of Medicare prescription drug prices, addresses a complex issue on which the process of going through committee deliberations would be a good idea. I take it that the Democrats expect this to be vetoed by George W. Bush or, perhaps, bottled up in the Senate; they don't expect that their bill will become law.

House Democratic leaders have promised that they will treat the minority more fairly than House Republicans treated them; House Republicans promised the same thing 12 years ago. But House Republicans didn't do so: The three-hour roll call they prolonged to pass the Medicare prescription drug bill in December 2003 was arguably greater abuse than anything the Democrats did in their 40 years in the majority in the House. Now, though Democrats say they'll be fairer after the "100 hours" vote, it looks like the Democrats are going to renege on their promise, too. So are the House Democrats and the House Republicans before them to be condemned as hypocrites? Not by me. I think both sides were sincere when they made their promises. But once in the majority, the Democrats are finding, as the Republicans did before them, it's difficult if not impossible to run a legislature with 435 members without tightly controlling procedure. That means limiting debate to a considerable extent.

Still, I'm puzzled that the Democrats aren't at least going through the motions of committee hearings.

Gays in the Military

Gen. John Shalikashvili, who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1993 to 1997, has an article in the New York Times calling for reconsideration of the ban on open gays in the military. As I've written before, I'm inclined to agree. The key for me is military effectiveness, and if we're discharging Arabic speakers for being gay, the case for change seems strong. As one of the architects of the current "don't ask don't tell" policy, General Shalikashvili deserves to be taken seriously, and he has concluded that allowing gays in the military would have less of a negative effect than he thought it would 14 years ago.

Some of my conservative friends will grumble that he was Bill Clinton's choice as chairman and that he has backed Democrats in recent elections, and in his article he seems to give the new Democratic Congress a pass on the issue. Realistically, I think: They understand that almost all Republicans are going to oppose this and that it's probably not a vote-winning issue. I hope our current military leaders are giving this matter careful thought and that if they conclude that allowing gays in the military would not reduce military effectiveness, they will recommend a change in policy.