2 California congressmen test our system’s resilience
In politics, nice guys don’t necessarily finish last. But they do tend to get overlooked.
Because Adam Schiff, D-Burbank, has been a fairly measured and softspoken member of Congress over the course of his career, he hasn’t attracted the attention that flows toward the political knife-fighters and backroom brawlers who populate cable television and talk radio. But his critical role in the investigation of potential Russian influence on last year’s presidential election has changed all that.
While Schiff ’s profile has risen dramatically, the Washington press corps doesn’t seem to know what do with an important political figure who isn’t abrasive, obnoxious or combative. One of the nicer adjectives used to describe him has been “mild-mannered.” He’s also been called “milquetoast” and, memorably, by the New York Times, “more labradoodle than Doberman.” The nation’s political cognoscenti, in other words, have decided that Schiff is not very exciting. Thank goodness. The prospect of a foreign power interfering in our elections is unprecedented. The questions that have arisen about potential involvement by Donald Trump’s campaign in those efforts have been even more unsettling. It’s not an exaggeration to say that identifying the answers is as stern a test of our democracy, where each of the three branches of government provide a check and balance on the power of the others, as our nation has ever faced. The last thing we need is a bomb-thrower or a partisan zealot as the face and voice of the opposition party. In times of crisis, a little calm goes a long way.
The last few months have served as an important reminder to both Trump supporters and opponents of the reasoning that led the nation’s founders to develop a system of government that prevents one faction, one group or one individual from amassing too much power. We saw how the courts ruled against the president’s proposed travel ban but also provided guidance on how a more narrowly applied rule could pass constitutional muster. Republican congressional majorities have acceded to Trump on some matters but resisted on others. Our system, where the federal government has unifying powers but grants significant authority to state and local governments, has provided a foundation for elected officials in California and elsewhere to challenge the president on a variety of issues. Government civil servants and journalists have fulfilled their responsibilities with a freedom not available in other societies.
But we’ve also been reminded that the system is only as good as the men and women in it. Nowhere has this challenge been more apparent than on the House Intelligence Committee, where Schiff and his California colleague, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Tulare, have led the investigation into the potential effect of the Russian government’s involvement in last year’s election. Committee chairman Nunes, to put it as politely as possible, appears to be in over his head. At the time this column was written, no conclusive evidence regarding the motives for his curious behavior in the course of the committee’s probe has been made public. Serious questions regarding his conduct have not yet been answered, creating bipartisan concerns about the legitimacy of the House inquiry. It now appears that their Senate colleagues will occupy the more impactful role for the foreseeable future.
Schiff has had his slip-ups, too. His call for Nunes to step aside in favor of another Republican, even if the substantively correct assessment, made Schiff look overly partisan and should have been left to others. But, on balance, the same caution and circumspection that have kept him from being a more frequent media presence in the past have served him extremely well in such a high-stakes setting now.
The worst possible outcome of this investigation would be for it to break down on predictable partisan lines. Principled GOP leaders, who are willing to ask difficult questions of Trump and his team, will be necessary to get to the bottom of this. But we’re also going to need equally principled Democrats, who can look past their own partisan preferences, to examine the evidence with an unbiased eye.
Schiff is a loyal Democrat, of course, but, his criticism of Nunes notwithstanding, he has found a way to conduct himself in a manner that acknowledges his party preference without becoming captive to it. Our system works most effectively when imperfect people do their best to make it work. If more leaders in both parties follow Schiff ’s example, then we will navigate these troubled waters as successfully as our founders could have hoped.