In this issue:

Guess who is coming to dinner? Round two.
Is partisanship dying in Tennessee?
A recent case in point.
Past is Prelude.
How Republicans dealt with partisanship in the past or, alternatively, what was the point of being a House Republican?
The rest of the story.
Short term pain, long term gain?
Backroom politics, mushy middle or gridlock, what will it be?
The Good in Gridlock.

Guess who is coming to dinner? Round two.

Last week the Governor held a dinner for the Republican members of the Senate.  According to published reports it was to allow communication in view of the necessity that a Republican controlled body concur in the Governor's legislative proposals.  With Senate Republicans questioning the need for such things as the Governor's proposed tobacco tax, the expansion of free pre-school, and what the "higher standards" for education will be and whether they will be real, the need to recognize Republican control of the Senate is genuine.

Actually I had the opportunity to be a part of one of those dinners last Spring.  The conversation was guarded and generally couched in conciliatory tones, as I guess this one was too. It's not too unlike when a young married couple have all the in-laws over for dinner if you've ever experienced that. Then again, perhaps it was a bit less so since Republicans now are in a stronger position, having control of the majority of the Finance and Commerce Committees, a posture they did not have last year.

Is partisanship dying in Tennessee?

But is this bi-partisanship effort real?  Being a lawyer by training, I'll give you a lawyer's answer:  yes and no.  Yes, it does come from a real recognition that Republicans now have to be dealt with in order for a Democratic agenda to become law.  So, some degree of cooperation is now needed.  And, no, it does not mean that gridlock can't and won't happen.

A recent case in point.

One case in point comes from last year when there was a proposal for a certain "ethics reform."  There were two bills that would accomplish the same thing, one sponsored by a Democrat in the House and in the Senate and one sponsored by a Republican in the Republican controlled Senate and by a Democrat in the House, a "bi-partisan bill" you might say. 

Did the proposal that both Democrats and Republicans obviously agreed on become law?  Did UT get past the first round of the SEC basketball tournament this year?  Do frogs have wings?  The answer to all three is no; both bills died in committee.

The "bi-partisan bill" passed the Senate and was sent to the House for approval.  But Democratic leadership didn't really like the Democratic house sponsor, who was sort of in the doghouse at that time, and besides, had the bill passed, Republicans could have taken some credit for the measure because a Republican had carried the bill in the Senate.  So the House leadership decided they would pass the Democrats-only bill.

Past is Prelude.

Now before I finish that story, you need to appreciate that for years, the bi-partisan bill would have died in the House, but the legislature, with Democrats firmly in control of both Chambers, would have passed the Democrats-only version. 
Digging through the archives for a great example of how things worked, you may recall that our state's gun carry law was proposed by former Republican House member, Harold Stockburger, of Cleveland.  Harold was lampooned and ridiculed by the press. But the public loved it and when Democrats realized how popular it was, Stockburger's bill died a quick and silent death in the House.  It never became law.

"Wait," you may say, "How can that be because I'm carrying my gun next to my heart right now?"  And you are right, it is legal to carry your gun, but not because Rep. Stockburger's bill was passed. 

Instead, once the bill's popularity was discovered, Democrats took the language from Stockburger's bill, amended it into a Democrat-only sponsored bill, and passed it through both Chambers so that Democrats could claim that they were the champion of gun owners' rights.  A prime example of "to the victor goes the spoils." 

How Republicans dealt with partisanship in the past or, alternatively, what was the point of being a House Republican?

So strong was this tendency, that, in the Senate, it was understood that if you were a Republican and had a good idea, you needed to make sure that a Democrat carried the companion bill in the House.  The thought was that the House Democratic leadership would be less likely to kill one of its own member's bills.  It didn't always work, but it was a Republican Senator's best hope of passing something important. 

What was the reciprocal strategy for Republican house members?  There was none (actually there were some, but they were hard to pull off and things had to be just right).  Now back to last year's ethics bill.

The rest of the story.

Now, back to the ethics bill.  The Democrat-only ethics bill came up for a vote in the Senate's Local Government Committee and the sponsor at that time made it clear that the Republicans should know by now that the House was not going to pass the bi-partisan bill so, if the Senate was going to do the right thing, the committee needed to pass the Democrat sponsor only version.  But, taking a cue from the Democratic leadership's cry that tax reform had to be bi-partisan, even though they were in the majority, the Senate Republican committee members said, "you guys were right back then; bi-partisan is good."  With that they adjourned the committee meeting, sending a signal to the House that it was a new day, that the Senate Republicans were not going to be "Stockburgered" anymore, and that the Senate has just as much a right to "dictate" what would happen as the House. 

When the bill was brought back a second time a week later, the Republican majority did the same thing - adjourned the meeting. Senator Cohen, Democratic chair of the Republican controlled committee, was fit to be tied, saying "I guess the House has to realize it is a new day around here."  Perhaps the House didn't figure that out or perhaps they just decided the bill wasn't that important anymore, but that was the end of that.

Short term pain, long term gain?

So, was this good or bad?  Well, I don't think it was so bad. I guess I have to say that since I was the one who made the two motions to adjourn.  But, the bill was not that critical to be honest; we have lots of "tempests in a tea pot" in Nashville.  Second, we had already passed enough ethics laws to paperwork the honest guys to death and to keep the ones who might go off the ranch, in the corral.  The dishonest ones - well they won't obey the law anyway.  But, I hope it produced a net, long-term gain if it made the House realize that there are two parties and two philosophies that are different and that a Party seeking political credit over the public's political good is not going to be acceptable - and that goes for BOTH parties.  That is why, I believe, Lt. Governor Ramsey told the Governor he expects Republicans to sponsor administration legislation that the GOP has pushed for years; in other words, Governor recognize that there are two parties and don't put "credit" ahead of good policy.  Of course, the same could be said in reverse to Ramsey, but after years of one way of thinking, it may take a little "stubbornness" by Republicans to change it and swing the pendulum back a bit.

So, backroom politics, mushy middle or gridlock, what will it be?
 
So, what do we now make of this dinner, this effort to "get to know one another better?"  Will things change?  Personally, as demonstrated by the action on the ethics bill from last year, things had already begun to change in terms of a growing recognition that we are a two party governing body politic in Tennessee.  Each house will have to work with the other and the Governor will have to work with the Senate.

If that means that both parties let the other pass some bills - we'll pass your bill on X if you will pass our bill on Y - then it's back room politics at its best.  But, good laws can come from that, depending on whether X and Y are good.  If it means that both parties abandon their principles and move to a mushy middle position, then we'll get a "mushy middle" kind of state.  Some, no doubt, would rather have mushy middle than gridlock.
 
But we may get more of what happened with last year's ethics bill. If it's a bill that everyone agrees is good and the two parties are just "selfish" about who will claim political credit, then that is bad for all of us (assuming that both parties aren't wrong which they both can be).  We'll try to keep our eye out for that kind of stuff and let you know about it. 

The Good in Gridlock.

But, if the two parties can't agree, then gridlock, in my opinion, is not all bad. In fact, gridlock was built into our system.  It was the idea behind the separation of powers and checks and balance - the concurrent majorities we talked about two weeks ago in regard to the Electoral College.

When it comes to government programs, gridlock can help government stay small which inures to greater liberty for all.  And, after all, it is fools who rush in where angels fear to tread.