Government by the Timid

By WALTER SHAPIRO

America has long believed in the theory that absolute job security increases the odds of independence and moral courage. College professors are granted tenure to ensure their right to voice unpopular opinions. Supreme Court Justices serve for life to free them from having to bow to the prevailing political winds. All these arrangements make sense, until one considers the curious case of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Talk about guaranteed federal jobs. Last November only six of the 408 House members running for re-election were defeated, and three of the losers had been tarred by very serious ethics problems. Few incumbents lay awake nights worrying about the unemployment line; 88% triumphed with at least 60% of the vote, the classic definition of a safe district. The traditional levers of incumbency, augmented by the largesse of political-action committees, have created this modern version of a rotten-borough system. In the four House elections since 1980, a total of 1,740 seats were at stake, yet only about 30 sitting Congressmen were defeated for reasons other than redistricting and ethics. Old-fashioned democratic reasons, that is, like having a strong opponent or taking stands unpopular with the voters.

In an ideal world, these legislators-for-life would reward the faithful electorate with an impressive display of bravery and statesmanlike behavior. So much for naive theory. To watch the House at work last week was akin to viewing one of those 1950s science-fiction movies in which the world quakes in dread of invaders from outer space. The climate of fear was that palpable.

The issue was, of course, the proposed pay raise that would have lifted congressional wages from $89,500 to $135,000 a year and far more equitably compensated federal judges and top Executive Branch officials. After weeks of public posturing against the Great Salary Grab, while privately coveting the raises, Congressmen had been hopeful that their Machiavellian maneuvers would pay off -- literally. If House Speaker Jim Wright just held firm against a vote, the salary increase would automatically take effect at midnight last Tuesday night. But Wright wavered; the House quavered and overwhelmingly killed the salary hike by a vote of 380 to 48.

Such are the rewards of cynicism and cowardice. The passions aroused by the pay fray may have been extraordinary, but the duplicitous behavior it spawned is typical. Running for cover has become such natural behavior that Congressmen will go to extremes to duck accountability. The only way Congress could muster the moxie to close 86 outmoded military bases was first to appoint a commission whose recommendations will automatically take effect in April unless rescinded by both houses. To mask its inability to confront the deficit, Congress created the Gramm-Rudman guillotine, which arbitrarily cuts the budget if compromise fails.

Why are Congressmen so chicken? The most persuasive answers do not fit any of the orderly models found in political-science textbooks. Instead they are rooted in the peculiar folkways of the small town of 435 residents known as the House of Representatives.

Once Bitten, Forever Shy.

Most legislators survived at least one tough election early in their careers, and the anxiety lingers. "It's the built-in nervousness in the system," says Michigan Democratic Congressman Sander Levin. "People who should be sure tend to be unsure." Small wonder that even the safest incumbents run up huge surpluses in their campaign war chests to deter future challengers.

The Fear of Downward Mobility.

Congressmen are not devoid of humility, and some legislators recognize that if it were not for a few lucky breaks, they would be back home peddling insurance. One Democrat ridicules a colleague from an adjoining district as "scared of his shadow." The explanation: "He knows that he's at the pinnacle of his life, and if he ever lost this job, he could never live like this again."

The Ghost of Incumbents Past.

Legislators are haunted by the specter of defeated colleagues, even those from another era. Jimmy Carter was still President when House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Al Ullman lost a re-election bid in 1980, in part because of his advocacy of a value-added tax. But nearly a decade later, a Congressman cannot even discuss the possibility of that kind of tax increase without being warned, "Remember what happened to Ullman." Last year, despite the 99% re- election rate, two powerful House Democrats were rejected by the voters. Such dramatic defeats are frightening to legislators, argues G.O.P. Congressman Newt Gingrich of Georgia, "even if they're statistically irrelevant. It's like fear of flying."

The Inconvenience of Opposition.

For a Congressman, it is beguiling to run for re-election challenged only by a Trotskyite and a vegetarian. In 1988, 65 incumbents ran unopposed. Congressmen so blessed are reluctant to take a stance that might complicate re-election. "The risk they are averting is not the loss of their seat," explains Republican Congressman Dick Armey of Texas, "but that they have to go home and face a rigorous challenge." A House Democratic leader says colleagues sometimes complain, "If I cast that vote, I've bought myself an opponent next time."

This sort of timidity cuts to the heart of what is so troubling about anointing legislators for life. "The issue is not that we need to defeat incumbents," contends Fred Wertheimer, president of Common Cause. "It's just that competitive elections are what democracy is all about." What matters, in short, is not the amount that Congressmen are paid, but whether the nation can again create a political system in which they earn it.