One of the most striking things I’ve seen in my more than four decades around the Congress (ok, I worked there while my friends were doing their newspaper routes) is the incredible diffusion of power that has taken place over that time. It’s important to be mindful of this new reality: if you want to prevail, you better tend to every vote, every seemingly minor bloc and every “opinion shaper” you can reach. And, you better be up to date on how to reach them.
Once upon a time, we addressed critical tax issues by having dinner with a powerful Congressional committee chairman at Morton’s in Georgetown. That was often enough of an effort, and lawyers and lobbyists earned their keep without reference to the number of hours they spent on a project. The midnight oil was burned at places that didn’t have shelves of tax law treatises. Running Congress this way reflected the political reality that so many powerful members were accustomed to at home: I recall visiting a beloved Speaker on behalf of my presidential candidate and asking for advice on carrying his district only to be patted on my young head and told not to worry, that he “would take care of it.”
In time, this changed — profoundly. Subcommittee chairmen became more influential as younger House members demanded greater influence and a meaningful role in the shaping of legislation. Tidal grassroots political movements, whether created by struggles over civil rights or wars, shook the foundations of a relatively closed system of governance and alerted the people that they could demand and get the attention of policy-makers. Campaign finance became exponentially more expensive, and corporations, labor unions and activists capable of raising money saw their influence increase. We became more democratic – small “d” – on both sides of the aisle.
Fast forward to February 8, 2011. The Democratic President of the United States and the Republican leadership of the Congress agree that the national security interest of the Nation requires that the “Patriot Act” be extended. Simple, right? Wrong.
The President and the new Republican leadership of the House got a cold shower last week when more than two dozen GOP Members joined more than half of the Democratic caucus and voted against reauthorizing the Patriot Act. This seems to have caught the White House and the Republican leadership alike by surprise.
The Patriot Act extension was brought up in the House under suspension of the rules — a provision that requires two-thirds majority. The bill will certainly be brought back under regular order requiring a simple majority, and it will be passed – but that’s not the point. Rather, this was a dramatic indication that the White House cannot take the Democratic caucus for granted and that Republicans may have trouble delivering a solid majority.
Just a day after that vote, a coalition of Democrats and Republicans in the House defeated a Republican bill to address over-payments to the United Nations. In all, three of the five bills slated by Leadership for House action this week have failed to move. The message is clear: the rank and file, including the new back-benchers intend to be heard and to be consequential.
So, what does it mean for the rest of us? A lot.
Every time I hear a “plan of attack” that focuses on just a handful of influential Senators or House members, I’m skeptical. Sure, there will always be the occasional issue that only a relatively small group of elected officials really care about – like whether that new Post Office will be built. (Oops, I take that back. That costs money, and, no doubt, will be attacked for busting the budget.)
The point is simply that narrow-gauged targeting when it comes to moving legislation is imprudent. Here are some things I try to keep in mind these days:
• Most issues will require you to have a 360 degree view of official Washington: you need to thoroughly understand how your concern is viewed by Democrats, Republicans, Administration liberals and Administration centrists. The best efforts will be informed by bi-partisan understanding and the best plans will take into account every conceivable source of opposition. In the Senate in particular, it doesn’t take much to hit a bump in the road – but as the new House Leadership has come to learn, that is not a phenomenon know only to the other Chamber. So, there is no substitute for thoroughness.
• You have to consider carefully whether close alignment with any one lead sponsor will have a downside: some in a position to stop you may do so simply to deny someone else a political victory. We live in times when advocacy is often as much about threading a needle and not running into a “show stopper” as much as it is about having a champion.
• No member is too new and no caucus is too small to get your attention. This is not to say you don’t need leaders on your issues – of course you do, and the more senior they are, the better. The lesson is that that is often not enough. You need the ability to run your own “whip operation” and count every vote, because every vote counts.
• Every member and everyone in the Administration is keenly sensitive to the “mainstream” media and the power of the new media, including social networks like Facebook and Twitter. It is now truer than ever that every public policy challenge is also a communications challenge: you need strategic messaging and you need to be able to find your way around the old and the new media outlets.
Social media in particular create an instant grass roots capability for which political organizers used to charge dearly and take months to accomplish. Moreover, you not only need a compelling message: you need an exquisite sense of timing. Compelling messages have to be rolled out in ways that set the agenda, lest they become the victim of someone else’s agenda.
In my time here in Washington, change is the one thing that has remained constant. Some may lament that the old days are gone forever. But the good old days weren’t always good, and they certainly were never as good as some of us remember them. Our democracy improves itself with more transparency, more technology and more input from the folks back home every year. That is a good thing, even if it makes things more complicated for us inside the Beltway.
Yours,
Jack Quinn is chairman and founder of Quinn Gillespie & Associates.
(An abbreviated version of this note appeared as “ 4 New Rules For Influence in a New Washington” on National Journal’s website on February 12. It can be found at http://bit.ly/eQs0J7.)