True North

There’s been a great deal of hand-wringing about the “punishments” meted out to the 6 Republican House members who voted to override Governor Pawlenty’s veto of the $6.6 billion tax increase.  Several of these members, aided by their media enablers, are trying to portray themselves as victims.  A little perspective is necessary.

Let me start by stipulating that no member owes his or her vote to anyone.  First and foremost, when casting a vote, a member must be true to his oath of office, his conscience, and his constituents, in that order.  Next come a member’s obligations to his party and to his legislative caucus.  While those obligations are secondary, they are real and significant.

I know quite a bit about this from my days as a leadership staffer for former House Majority Leader Dick Armey.  One of our most difficult challenges was dealing with members, especially Committee Chairmen and other senior members, who refused to take seriously their obligations to the team.  This is about far more than politics; it raises serious issues about mutual obligations and the nature of leadership.

Some members believe, wrongly, that positions of leadership in a legislative body are entitlements.  These members believe they have rights and no responsibilities.  Like all of us, they have both.

A member who refuses to accept any responsibilities to his caucus simply cannot be afforded positions of leadership and trust in a legislative body.  His irresoluteness makes it unlikely that his fellow members will ever follow him, a pretty fundamental problem for any leader.  This is especially true on core issues like taxes and spending, which go to the heart of what it means to be a Republican.

No one is suggesting that the Republican Six must cast votes which violate their principles, no one is suggesting that are not welcome as members of the caucus.  All that has been determined is their unfitness for leadership jobs.  There are likely to be further issues between them and their constituents, but that goes beyond the scope of our discussion of internal caucus politics.

So far as I know, there has been no firestorm among House Republicans to reinstate these six members to their former positions (a common occurrence when members feel as though a colleague has been dealt with unfairly), which suggests that Leader Seifert’s move enjoys the support of his members.  It’s been my experience that members casting votes which say, in effect, “we few know better than the many” elicit very little sympathy, especially on a veto override of a Republican executive.

Votes, like ideas, have consequences.  If a member upholds the dictates of his conscience, then he ought to be satisfied, even if the politics turn unpleasant.  Real leaders don’t announce their political courage by whining about the political consequences.