The mid-twentieth century comedian Jimmy (“the Schnozzola”) Durante always got a big laugh from his audiences with his trademark line, “Everyone wants to get into the act.”
I thought about that last week in considering all the kerfuffle in Washington over the Jeffrey Epstein controversy. It seemed everybody was competing for attention to make the news. That’s an exaggeration, of course. A vast majority of prominent politicians want to stay away from any scent of scandal. But their more vocal colleagues more than compensate.
Imagine you are in a classroom of very bright students and the teacher poses a difficult question. Forty hands shoot-up immediately to answer. Now, multiply that number by ten and you get some sense of what it’s like to be a member of the 435-person U.S. House of Representatives. Nearly everyone has answers to most issues, no matter how disparate their views. Who gets recognition, how, and what is the public reaction to those varying opinions?
You might get a 10-second soundbite on television from your press conference or House floor remarks, or from your postings on a social media platform. Can you call this a success? Momentary attention counts for something, but did you get results?
Durante may have been right that many want to get into the act, but not everyone does. Those who do often dazzle by their clever wording. But words don’t remain on memories for long or change opinions.
Politics, however, can be cruel to those who succeed in attracting the spotlight. Imagine being attacked by your colleagues from across the aisle as being a showboat, grandstander, or partisan hack out for a quick pop fix. In show business your fellow entertainers tend to be generous and accepting when their competitors succeed. Hold your peace and your time will come as “Mr. nice guy.”
In Congress there are few opportunities to really shine, especially if you are in the minority. That’s why efforts pay off in gathering an impressive cohort of bipartisan co-sponsors on a bill, and then on filing a discharge petition on that bill requiring 218 signatures. That enables you to bring your bill to the floor, often in the face of strong majority leadership opposition.
In the Epstein case most recently, the discharge petition co-sponsored by ideologically opposites — Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) — continues to garner bipartisan signatures. Fearing possible votes on that or other substantive legislation with amendment opportunities, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) sent members home a day early last week for their August break.
Other options for attention grabbing include utilizing the morning hour on Mondays and Tuesdays during which members can speak for up to five minutes on any topic, and end-of-the-day special order period when members can control up to an hour to speak and share their time with like-minded supporters of their particular cause. These free speech periods may only be seen on C-Span, but even the president is a known to be a viewer of that obscure cable network.
Attempts to offer pertinent amendments to important legislation have much less chance of succeeding, mainly because the majority leadership controls the decisions of the House Rules Committee majority which decides which, if any, amendments will be made in order.
Most mega-bills bar any and all amendments. But even then, as we saw on special rules for the rescission and defense appropriations bills two weeks ago, floor fights over special rules can occasionally succeed, at least temporarily, with a handful of majority party members joining with a united minority party in overturning the majority leadership’s best laid plans.
Committee subpoenas calling for information from the executive can also be attention grabbers with real consequences, again if there is sufficient bipartisan support in committee, as we have just witnessed in the House Oversight and Reform Committee over the Epstein files.
The Speaker always has the scheduling prerogatives and Rules Committee to squeeze out minority attempts at power, backed by rules and precedents that have been skewed to favor the partisan majority. But, as the saying goes, a determined majority can always work its will. Small “d” democracy still works if the people retain their interest in and support for those causes.
Once that attention and support fades, though, cause leaders are reduced to being show boaters without a boat or a grand-standers without a stage or audience. That’s when it’s time for Jimmy Durante’s most famous closing line sign-off, “Good night, Mrs. Calabash, wherever you are.”
Don Wolfensberger is a 28-year congressional staff veteran culminating as chief of staff of the House Rules Committee in 1995. He is author of, “Congress and the People: Deliberative Democracy on Trial” (2000); and, “Changing Cultures in Congress: From Fair Play to Power Plays” (2018).
