With the election a month behind us, politicians can finally take off their campaign buttons and get down to the business of governing the country.
If only.
November 15 marked the beginning of the "lame duck session" of the 111th Congress, and our legislators are well on their way to getting little to nothing done in the home stretch of an already disappointing term. Republicans have heightened their obstructionist talk, with all 42 GOP Senators refusing to bring any issue to the floor until the Bush-era tax cuts are extended for everyone and the continuing resolution (CR) is passed to continue funding the government. Although these are important matters on the Senate's hands, Jay Newton-Small, writing for Time.com, notes that such issues are usually saved until the end of the session, and that this is merely a way for Republicans to block action on Don't Ask Don't Tell, the new START Treaty, and the DREAM Act.
So here we are, in another typical lame duck session of Congress only one month after millions of Americans showed their displeasure at the polls with the inaction of our legislators. But I wonder how the term "lame duck" came do describe this legislative moment, and how it affects our perceptions and expectations of the session.
According to Ed Quillen, a columnist for the Denver Post, the term goes back to 18th century finance, where a "lame duck" was a stock dealer who could not pay of his/her losses, or someone who defaulted on a loan. The phrase was first used in politics in 1863, and the first "lame duck" president was Calvin Coolidge in the 1920s. Now, the term is used to describe an elected official in his/her final term, or one who was voted out of office but whose term has not ended. In addition to this definition, The Oxford American Dictionary also defines "lame duck" as an "ineffectual or unsuccessful person or thing." And thus, the "lame duck" session of Congress, the one-and-a-half month session destined to be ineffectual, unsuccessful, and, it seems, merely a formality, a buffer period before the inauguration of the next Congress,
But why must it be so unproductive?
This blog, called "Goodbye Incumbents," points out that 81% of the next Congress beginning in January will be made up of incumbents, or people already in Congress now. So, although the political balance of this 111th Congress is certainly different from that of the 112th Congress to come, most of the people in there were voted for to keep their jobs. And plus, the electorate votes for 2 (or 6, in the case of the Senate) year terms, and these legislators have a job they were voted for to do until the day the next term begins. The country still needs legislators to deal with real issues like the START Treaty and DADT - PM Vladimir Putin has already said that the failure of Congress to ratify the START Treaty this year could push Russia to build up its nuclear arms. Maybe, if we stopped referring to this important session of Congress, especially after such a divisive election cycle and stagnant action the past two years, as a "lame duck" session, expectations would be higher for our legislators to address the critical issues of the day.
So here's to a successful, not lame - and not particularly duck-like - rest of this session.
I think your criticism of the phrase lame duck is interesting. If we use this kind of phrase, a phrase that represents everything ineffectual, to define our government (even if it is only for a few months) we will fall behind. Especially at the point the country is in right now we need action rather than inaction, and the underlying idea of the lame duck session does nothing to help the cause. I am not saying we should call it the 'great eagle' session...but maybe we should. Maybe then we could get it into our heads that it is in fact possible to do something positive in the next month or so. Thanks for the thoughtful post!
ReplyDelete