Comity in Congress

Comity is defined as "An atmosphere of social harmony". It had been previously used to describe the way that the two parties treated each other in the House and Senate. A kind of gentleman's agreement had existed over the centuries which allowed factions which were fierce rivals on a wide range of issues to still work together in a collegial manner. By consequence, Congress was able to do the people's work in a reasonably efficient and collaborative fashion.

Apparently, this atmosphere has changed over the past few years. One example of this was the aggressive campaign against Senate minority leadre Tom Daschle, resulting in his unseating. While no incumbent should feel that he or she is owed re-election (no matter what his position in the party), this was a special targeting of a senator with a small constituency by the full force of the national Republican party. Thirty million dollars in campaign contributions went to his opponant, or $75 per South Dakota voter! This has the effect of going for the jugular, successfully targeting the leader of the opposition- something that had not been done in the Senate for over 50 years. This is more than just winning another seat, it is meant to intimidate and make a statement. And it certainly has.

Another example of this is the threat of Bill Frist (Republican Senate majority leader) to use the "nuclear option" if the Democrats try to block Republican Supreme Court nominees. Normally, the minority party, as long as they have at least 40 seats, can filibuster to prevent confirmatio of particularly unacceptable candidates, as a check against the majority party. Frist suggested that such a tactic could be outlawed, easing the way for controversial appointees. Furthermore, Arlen Specter, a moderate Republican who was expected to chair the judiciary committee which oversees these appointments, is now facing the possiblity of losing this position. He has publically warned the White House that, for example, Supreme Court nominees with hard-line pro-life positions would have a hard time passing confirmation. This angered many conservative legislators, who feel that the recent election gives them the right to push their agendas without the traditional checks and balances of the opposition party.

While it is true that "the victors get the spoils" in our winner-take all electoral system, the Republicans should take care to remember that being in the majority isn't the same thing as having absolute power. And it isn't forever, either. I know that it is hard to think of a future when the Republicans will lose control of Congress, the White House, or both, but it will happen. With absolute certainty, it will happen. And what goes around, comes around. Pushing through a bunch of procedural rules right now to gut opposition party power might seem like the way to go, until the pendulum swings the other way. As John McCain said about weakening the minority camp in Congress: "If I believed Republicans would be in the majority forever, I'd be more favorably disposed".