How Democrats killed ‘process,’ in favor of ‘protest’

The staged sit-in began just before noon on June 22nd as a way to, according to one party insider, “seize the opportunity” created by the recent shooting carnage in Orlando, Fla., that left 49 dead.

Democrats, at first about two dozen in number but soon joined by nearly the entire caucus either in action or in tweet, had decided that failing to win a majority in the House of Representatives in the 2014 election wouldn’t prevent them from controlling the institution anyway.

{mosads}The media alternated between calling the protest “historic” and “extraordinary” while pundits interrogated Republicans as to why they didn’t bow to the election-year pressure tactic of a party that at that moment wielded no institutional power in the chamber.

On Tuesday, nearly six months after the demonstration took place, Republicans approved a change to House rules that allow for the punishment of members seeking to use their cellphones to draw attention to the unprecedented maneuver.

According to the resolution, lawmakers can now potentially be fined up to $2,500 for “use of an electronic device for still photography or for audio or visual recording or broadcasting” from the chamber.

No matter where your party sits on the issue, this is a good thing.

I learned in third grade that if you want to get a bill passed — or actual control the House — you need to win elections. Our institutions and the stability they are designed to ensure are dependent upon process. Not anymore. We are a generation that is bearing witness to the death of process.

Don’t like a jury verdict? Protest. Don’t like the GOP presidential candidate and want to silence his free speech? Yell louder. Don’t like election results? Act like they never happened.

Few could argue that a dialogue about guns is unnecessary in the aftermath of the senseless mass murders that took place in Orlando, Fla., and Newtown, Conn., and in other places around the United States. Yet such a conversation — like ones about free speech or any other provision of the Bill of Rights — must include a discussion about not only public safety but the process by which we achieve it.

Most alarming about the sit-in on the House floor, which was supplemented with catered meals, and the countless other protests over countless other issues is that the protestors aren’t seeking to alter the process. Instead they advocate to change the outcomes and, once in power, will no doubt demand adherence to the same process they once thwarted.

“It’s a new day in Washington; it’s a new way to fight,” said Democratic Rep. Joseph Crowley from the House floor during the June demonstration. “We’re going to get in the way until we see action.”

While the words and actions of the New York lawmaker and his colleagues earned themselves short-term acclaim on the left, the projected implications may not be so benign.

The Democrats fail to realize that using this tactic to bring about the policy reform they seek only empowers Republicans to use the same tactic when they are no longer in control of the chamber. The cycle of hyper-dysfunction this situation creates for the future — resulting in the prevention of elections from having any consequence — should be viewed with alarm and not celebration.

James Madison envisioned a system where we would settle our policy differences at elections amongst people who were engaged, informed and either happy with the representation they receive or upset with its absence.

If these individuals, our fellow citizens, were pleased they would vote for those who they supported. If they were unhappy they would ask questions in the town square, vote for the challenger, run for office themselves or maybe write an editorial in a local newspaper.

The spectacle on the House floor this past June that lasted just one day was not a debate over the rights of the protesters — where a public demonstration would not only be appropriate but, in many circumstances, essential.

It was a protest over a policy that seeks to regulate a right. If one seeks to alter our fundamental rights, they need to amend the Constitution. If Democrats want to start controlling policy, they need to start winning elections.

James Coll is an adjunct professor of American and Constitutional history at Hofstra University and the founder of ChangeNYS.org, a not-for-profit dedicated to promoting civic education and political reform in New York State, and a detective in a tactical and rescue unit of the New York City Police Department. He has written numerous articles on politics and history for POLITICO, Newsday, City-Journal, NY Daily News and the NY Post among others.