The Tory Schism

Iain Duncan Smith is an intelligent politician who chose the difficult job of leading the British Conservative party in a time of Labour domination. He was relieved of that burden but stays active in politics. In today's New York Times op-ed page, he has a piece advising the Republicans against their idea of restricting Democratic obstructionist tactics in the Senate; the Dems have been using these to block some of Dubya's more loony judicial nominees.

Smith goes through the UK experience with the filibuster restriction, noting its origins as a response to the debating tactics of the Irish Parliamentary Party. Doubtless constrained by a word count, he doesn't go into all the background on the tactic and its eventual demise, but it's worth noting that the Irish party's power in the Commons arose not just from the gift of the gab but its pioneering professionalism, including the application of the parliamentary whip. It was the Tories who brought in the guillotine as now applied, but the Liberals had lost patience with being out-manoeuvered by the Irish too.

One final bit of meandering; the Irish group also played a role in the demise of the other minority blocking instrument mentioned by Smith: the House of Lords. In that case, though, it was to their benefit -- a deal on taxes and Home Rule forced through the House of Lords by the Parliament Act.

There's something of more general interest about Smith's article -- it stands as an illustration of the gulf that now exists between traditional notions of "conservative" and the current American version thereof. For Smith is making the classic conservative argument in favour of parliamentary obstruction; that existing institutions get the benefit of the doubt, that majorities aren't always right, that legislation on executive branch whim can backfire.

And yet consider what the Republicans were up to over the weekend -- a rushed Congressional session, during adjournment, to pass a bill aimed at one specific tragic medical case, and in a symbiotic relationship with a cable TV news feeding frenzy. Let's stack the Terry Schiavo law against Smith's nostrums:

It has always been appropriate for parliaments to have the power to stop hasty legislation. And this democratic responsibility is even more important in today's electronic age. A dangerous combination of frenzied news coverage and trigger-happy legislators has put many bad laws onto statute books across the world. As the old saying goes, providence moves slowly but the devil always hurries. Bicameral legislatures, powers of filibuster, and the need for supermajorities on issues of vital importance are useful blocks on devilish legislation.

Consider finally Smith's specific example of how bad things happen when bills can get rammed through the legislature:

In the run-up to the general election expected to be held on May 5 - the first since the terrorism attacks of Sept. 11 - Prime Minister Tony Blair has decided to put national security at the heart of his campaign. As part of that effort, his party proposed legislation that would allow suspected terrorists to be put under house arrest in contravention of historic liberties. Mr. Blair wanted the home secretary, not a judge, to make the initial decision to arrest a suspect. He initially gave the Commons barely a day to approve one of the most controversial bills of recent decades.

In this precise episode lies the divergence in the two approaches to the War on Terror. Blair at least believed that he'd have to have parliamentary approval before imposing detention without trial -- a power that Dubya's lawyers says he has simply by virtue of being the Commander in Chief. And under this legislation, detention would mean house arrest -- not a military jail, and not being spirited out of the country. As it happens, there was a widespread parliamentary revolt at Blair's proposals and they were significantly modified.

In short, the American Opposition faces an aggressive and reactionary executive branch with a regimented and gerrymandered House of Representatives. The Senate filibuster is one of the few checks and balances left. It would be nice to believe that Smith's advice would carry some weight. We're waiting to see if soi-disant American Tory Andrew Sullivan pops up to endorse Smith's thoughts, but of course Sullivan is deeply compromised by his own previous rantings about how to pursue the War on Terror.