Republican power games continue long tradition
Published December 23, 2016
by Michael Bitzer, Political Science Professor, Catawba College, wfae.org, December 20, 2016.
Once upon a time, a political party was faced with the loss of a branch of government to its political nemesis. It came following a rancorous and bitter election, which saw the sitting incumbent defeated in his bid for re-election. Before the opposition was sworn in, however, the lame-duck party in power decided to use the rules of the game of politics, and its majority status, to ensure its presence within the structure of government, all to the dismay and abhorrence of the incoming opposition party.
The party in power decided not only to create, but fill, various vacancies within the government before the opposition assumed control of the government. In doing so, the party in power ensured its place within the new government, even with its new minority status in the legislative branch and the loss of the chief executive’s position.
The party in power even went as far as to appoint and confirm individuals the night before the swearing in of the new chief executive, all based on the law the outgoing party had passed in their lame-duck session just five days before the opposition assumed control of the government. In fact, the law reduced the number of seats on the highest court in the government, preventing the opposition party from potentially having any seats to fill.
The opposition was infuriated by the work of the lame-duck party in power. They claimed that political patronage was being instilled in the final days of the party in power, and vowed retribution.
Sound familiar? Well, this story isn’t about North Carolina in 2016, but rather the United States in 1801. When the first truly contested (and bitter) presidential election between Federalist incumbent John Adams and Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson concluded with Jefferson’s win over Adams (along with control of Congress by Jefferson’s party), the outgoing Federalists attempted to pack the government, especially the judiciary, with its own party faithful to hamper the incoming opposition party.
Most scholars know this story as the foundation for the case of Marbury vs. Madison, which led to the legal concept of judicial review by the Supreme Court of the United States.
But beyond the legal consequences of the case, the political ramifications demonstrate that political parties going out of power will use any methods or means, hopefully within the confines of constitutional boundaries, to ensure their political survival, or simply to ‘tweak the noses’ of the incoming opposition.
Within the past week, the charges of “coup” have been made against the Republican super-majority in the North Carolina General Assembly regarding their actions in a ‘fourth special session.’ Democrats charged that Republicans were taking aim at their incoming governor, Roy Cooper, with attempts to “sharply curtail” the chief executive’s authority and power. Some have even gone into hyperbolic descriptions of “attacking democracy.”
Political power games, such as this, aren’t anything new, in either the state of North Carolina or the nation as whole. One of the deans of political reporting in North Carolina, Rob Christensen, observedthat Democrats were just as guilty to pull political shenanigans when they controlled the legislative branch, which is the supreme branch of government in the state.
While many believe that ‘coup’ describes the actions of North Carolina Republicans in their special session, it wasn’t a “violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government,” but rather a “notable or successful stroke or move” on behalf of a party that, unlike the Federalists in 1801, still retain considerable power of their own when Cooper takes office, and can exercise that power, now more enhanced, before the Democratic governor is inaugurated.
Do the Democrats see this as political spite by Republicans for losing the governor’s mansion? Certainly, just like the Democratic-Republicans viewed the Federalists’ moves in 1801.
Do the Republicans see this as what’s good for past political goose is good for the current gander, with over 100 years of similar moves by Democratic dominance of North Carolina from the end of Reconstruction into the late 20th century? Definitely.
Are both parties guilty of using political power to their advantage when they have it? Absolutely.
Of course, when you have absolute power, well, you know the saying.
http://wfae.org/post/republican-lawmakers-power-games-continue-long-tradition
December 26, 2016 at 8:27 pm
Norm Kelly says:
Yup. That's right. Both parties are guilty. Demoncrats took advantage of their power & position for a century.
Republicans have been doing it for a few years.
But, what's the difference? Think really hard on this one. Libs won't be able to come up with the right answer. Conservatives and libertarians have already gotten the correct answer before they finish reading this sentence. (and certainly before i finished typing it, i'm so slow sometimes!)
The difference is in how the parties are treated by media folks. When demoncrats rule, their allies in media generally cover for them. Media allies usually bury stories about their allies on page B9, if covered at all. Usually, just covered UP! When media allies of the demons mention Republicans, it's usually front page, top of the fold.
Take the coal ash spill as a perfect example. Or you could take Charlotte's overstep of authority when they passed their citizen anti-safety ordinance.
The coal ash spill was directed solely at Pat. When did you hear that the ash ponds were KNOWN to have been leaking FOR DECADES? How often did you hear that Pat covered for Duke while he worked for them? How often did you hear/read that Pat got a sweet-heart deal for his ex-employer? Why the difference in reporting? Cuz the allies were in power FOR DECADES. Pat, an enemy of the allies, worked for the enemy company. Cuz it's a private company, a known enemy of demoncrats. No other information was necessary, or allowed to leak out, because it would look bad for the allies. Truth slipped out one day, and only one day, in the Raleigh Noise & Disturber. They leaked that the coal ash ponds were known to have been leaking for decades, and nothing was done about it. Why did this information NOT get more attention? Cuz the demon allies would have been hurt by the truth and full story. So, it's better for the allies to only report on part of the story and draw outrageous conclusions.
Then there's Charlotte's overreach. Their attempt was to give Roy some ammunition to run on; and it almost didn't work. They proved they didn't care about citizen safety. They proved they didn't care about overstepping authority. They proved they were working for a single constituency, regardless of how negatively it might affect all other constituencies. And which media outlet reported on the background of a major Charlotte ordinance supporter?
Fair and balanced reporting? Now that Donald has been elected, media types are now telling us they will be doing their jobs. Finally. But this comes as no surprise to anyone (with the ability to think!). Somehow media types ALWAYS find a way to 'do their jobs' when it comes to Republicans, but fall back into alliance mode when their allies rule! No surprise! But we have alternative sources of info and don't have to rely on the old, outdated, biased media outlets any more. And Donald is willing to go around media, just like Ronald did. And Ronald was extremely successful. If Donald is half as successful, it could just wipe out the disaster of the past 8 years! One can hope!
