[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 58 (Monday, May 11, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4606-S4607]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        TRIVIALIZING GOVERNANCE

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we are not moving along too quickly this 
morning, so I thought I would take an opportunity to visit about an 
observation that I have made. We had a few moments ago the remarks by 
the good Senator from West Virginia about the passing of a former 
Senator from his State. He talked a bit about the past, a bit about the 
history of the Senate, and it was extremely interesting. This place, of 
course, is filled with history, it is filled with tradition, and that 
is good.
  On the other hand, there are changes that have taken place, and one 
of them is a little troubling to me. It does seem as if we are 
increasingly moving governance into more of show business and into more 
of political spin, more of promotion, more of advertising than really 
dealing with issues based on the facts and how they impact us.
  The basic principle, of course, of our historic democracy, 
thankfully, continues to exist, and we must insist that it does 
continue to exist--the idea of a government by Constitution and 
adhering to the basic tenets of the Constitution, the separation of 
institutions that provide some semblance of power division among the 
executive and the legislative and judicial branches; the idea of public 
access, that people have an opportunity to participate fully in 
government, that people have an opportunity to have the background and 
the facts that are necessary to participate; the idea of disclosure--we 
talk about that a lot--majorities deciding the direction that we take 
in this country based on facts, rule of law. In short, a government of 
the people, by the people and for the people, of course, and these are 
basic elements of democracy.
  An informed public is essential to that government of the people. 
Ironically, technology, which has provided us with the greatest 
opportunity to know more about what is happening more quickly than 
ever--can you imagine what it must have been like 100

[[Page S4607]]

years ago to be home in Wyoming and wonder what is going on in 
Washington? I suppose there was some comfort in that, as a matter of 
fact, but, nevertheless, it is quite different than what we have now. 
We have now the greatest opportunity in history for people to know what 
is happening and to know instantly what is happening. If a decision is 
made in Israel this morning, minutes later, the whole world, of course, 
is familiar with it.
  Unfortunately, the same technology that has provided us the 
opportunity to know so much more has accommodated and, in fact, I 
suppose, engendered some of the changes that are taking place in terms 
of the promotion of ideas and our method of governance.
  Unfortunately, spinning, promotion, and media hype have replaced real 
debate based on the issues, and that is too bad. It seems to me that 
this administration and, I must say, my friends in the minority, have 
perfected the idea that success is not policy or success is not 
finishing the job; success is having an opportunity to spin an issue on 
the evening news; success is getting coverage on the 5 o'clock national 
report. If polls indicate there is an issue out there in which people 
are interested and it is currently being discussed, this administration 
is quick to describe the problem and promise a Federal solution with 
lots of Federal money--``We'll fix it for you.''
  Often there is no plan presented to deal with the problem. There is 
generally no real proposal to implement, nothing is laid before the 
Congress. Frankly, there is really no expectation that anything is 
going to happen; that the idea is, ``Here's the problem, here's what 
the polls have said; we'll fix it.'' And if you don't agree with that, 
suddenly you are out of step with the world. So success is measured in 
media rather than solutions. Unfortunately, I think we see more and 
more of that.
  It is interesting to me, because, depending upon your point of view 
about government, there are problems and there are appropriate ways to 
fix them and appropriate ways to deal with them. Of course, it is true 
that people have different views about that. There are those who 
believe the Federal Government ought to be the primary fixer of 
whatever the problem. That is a legitimate liberal view. There are 
those who believe that it is more likely to find satisfactory solutions 
if you go to the State, the local government, or the private sector. 
That, I guess, is a more conservative view. But more important than the 
philosophy, I think it is appropriate that when you have something you 
want to deal with, we ought to talk a little bit about where it can 
most appropriately be fixed.

  Should it be done at the Federal Government level? Should it be the 
kind of program that is one size fits all? I am very sensitive about 
that, I suppose, being from Wyoming. We are the smallest, population-
wise, State in this country. So things that work in Pennsylvania, 
things that work in New York, do not necessarily work in Wyoming or 
Nevada or Kansas. So we are better off, in many instances, to say, 
``Wait a minute. This service can better be delivered on the basis of a 
State solution, although the politics of it is, `Let's get on TV and 
say we'll fix it for you,' '' even with no expectation of having it 
happen.
  So I think we are finding more and more of that. And it just seems to 
me that it is something we ought to really evaluate, this idea that we 
watch the polls, find an issue, go to the TV, say we will fix it, and 
then beat up on everybody who really does not agree with that, without 
having any genuine--genuine--debate or discussion or analysis of how we 
best deal with the problem and where it works.
  Generally, these are things that are done certainly in a broad 
context. Everyone cares about children, so if you have a proposal on 
children--and to suggest that we do not is offensive to me. Everybody 
cares about child care, but where is it best dealt with? Everybody 
cares about health care. Where is it best provided? Everybody cares 
about secondary and elementary education. Where do we best deal with 
it? It is not enough just to say, ``We've got a problem. I want 100,000 
teachers; I want the Federal Government to pay for it. It will become a 
mandatory program, and we have more and more Federal control.''
  Those are the debates. Those are the debates. I guess it troubles me 
because we sort of trivialize governance with this business of applying 
the media technique. I understand that the minority--and Republicans 
have been in the minority, of course. For the minority it is easier to 
make proposals. It is easier to throw stones and things because you do 
not have the responsibility to finish it up.
  So it is, I think, an interesting kind of thing and one that I 
believe has some bearing on us really solving problems here. I think it 
is something we all ought to give some consideration to so that we 
begin to say to ourselves, ``Here's the problem. How do we best resolve 
it?'' not just ``How do we get the best 5 o'clock news out of it?'' 
Success should not be how much media coverage; success ought to be 
dealing with the problem, trying to resolve it with real debate, real 
desire to put it where it belongs. Many problems are best solved in the 
private sector, best solved in State and local government, best 
solved--some--by the Federal Government. And those are the decisions 
that we should make.
  So, Mr. President, as we move forward I hope that we do maintain the 
elements of democracy. I have had the occasion, being chairman of a 
subcommittee on Foreign Relations, to go some places where they do not 
have democracy. And obviously the things that keep them from that is 
not having a constitutional government to which people can adhere and a 
rule of law which enforces it, an opportunity for people to voice their 
opinions and an opportunity for people to be informed as they form 
these opinions. These are the things that I think are important to our 
democracy and I am very interested in maintaining.

  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BENNETT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Utah is 
recognized.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, am I correct that I am recognized by 
previous order for 15 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________