From Bubble to Beltway

Listening to a pretty well known Congressman speak at an event the other day, I couldn’t help but be impressed. He was clearly master of his subject as well as master of the audience. His remarks tailored to coax the audience on his side, underline he was fighting for them while making it abundantly clear that there was work needed from them if they wanted him to achieve the policy changes they wanted to see.

While I was swept along in the man’s rhetoric, one thing did stand out: the amount of time the Congressman spent talking about himself. “I” did a lot it turned out; from sponsoring certain bills, offering certain amendments and ensuring that money went in the right direction. No modesty, false or otherwise, required.

As I sweated my way back down L Street to the office it struck me that a member of the European Parliament would have been (a) less eloquent but (b) less likely to talk about him or herself. Reference would have been made to the good works of his or her Committee. Perhaps a passing nod to the stated view of the Parliament as a whole. If they were feeling bold they would have mentioned their report. But no chest pounding about their numerous personal activities would have been called for. It would have seemed all too vulgar. Far too distracting from a debate about the policy at hand.

A number of reasons occur to me for this difference. Some of them good, some of them perhaps less so. Congressmen clearly have more power in that they can propose legislation. As opposed to having only the right to amend legislation proposed by others. As such, our modest member may quite rightly claim as an individual to have championed a cause in a way elected European parliamentarians can only dream of doing. Faced with continuous reelection campaigns Congressman also have a greater need to show to their electorate and those who fund their elections, including one may think the audiences in the room the other day, that they are indeed doing things that mean people should support them for. Our elected members in Brussels can choose to work hard or to disappear to Place Lux. The electorate will never know, nor do they particularly care. What they do in Brussels won’t matter a jot to their re-selection and re-election in any case.

Not to say that one system is necessarily better than another. A few months in to my time here I admire the connection between the elected and electors in America. There should be public debate on the issues of the day and public accountability at the ballot box for decisions good and bad. Party politics can be petty and detrimental to efficient outcomes, but it’s pretty essential for democracy. Brussels could do with some more of it. However, I have also come to appreciate that Brussels seems to debate policy issues in a much more rational way than Washington. The emotive debate played out in the media over healthcare just doesn’t happen to the same degree in Brussels. We would debate the ‘facts’ and seek to come to a consensus through a couple of years of legislative process where deals would be done. Here they hammer it out on the editorial pages and the winner takes all, or in the case of climate and energy legislation we all get nothing.

I am discovering that in this as in much else Brussels could do with some of Washington and Washington could do with some of Brussels.

James