“I don’t know, I’ve only been a Republican for a few hours.”
Awakened at dawn to answer his bedside telephone after a long night watching election returns over drinks, that was the answer Washington, D.C., super lawyer, top lobbyist and political strategist Tom Boggs gave to New York Times journalist Johnny Apple’s request for a comment on the significance of the seismic shift in power brought by the 1994 midterm election.
The GOP had taken control of Congress after picking up 54 House seats and eight Senate seats in what was widely described as a Republican revolution led by Georgia Congressman Newt Gingrich, who became the first Republican speaker of the house in 40 years.
R.W. “Johnny” Apple Jr., over his long career with the “Gray Lady,” was the quintessential newspaperman.
At various times, he was the paper’s bureau chief in London, New York and Washington.
He was renowned for his knowledge, astute observations and reporting about armed conflicts, international affairs, U.S. politics and culture and good food.
He was witty, affable and gregarious to a fault, nonpartisan and objective, restlessly in hot pursuit of the truth and a great meal.
Thomas Hale Boggs Jr., the scion of political royalty from Louisiana, was well known for his eponymous law firm. He earned an international reputation as America’s preeminent iconic lawyer-lobbyist and ingenious problem solver – not a fixer.
His unrivaled success as a lawyer specializing in government relations and public policy hinged on mastery of the intricate constitutional, statutory, regulatory and judicial processes that determine how laws and policies are made and implemented.
Also distinctive was his voracious, insatiable appetite for information and positive working relationships across party lines and factions.
It didn’t hurt that he was courteous, friendly, self-effacing and damn good company.
Boggs usually was the brightest, best prepared, and most open-minded person in “the room where it happened.”
The election morning quip by a groggy Boggs was the lede in Apple’s front page post-election article. He used it to illustrate the value of coming to grips with the reality of change and the adaptability of seasoned experts whose perspective is informed by history and a long-term view about the dynamic nature of American politics.
Although Oprah advised me to stop name-dropping, I cannot resist oversharing that both remarkable American originals were my friends and mentors.
In the wake of the dramatic changes now underway after the Nov. 5, 2024, election, the many lessons learned from them are helpful and reassuring.
For example, as role models they demonstrated that outrage, angst, hand-wringing, finger-pointing, giving up or, alternatively, gloating, retribution, divisiveness and overconfidence are, like scratching an itchy rash, understandable, but not particularly helpful and likely to make things worse.
Instead, in the face of humbling, stunning transitions, the ability to acknowledge the reality and meaning of change, to adjust and move forward are powerful virtues.
It doesn’t hurt to be able to laugh a little, especially at oneself.
Another profound lesson of the two political gurus is that, paradoxically, change is nothing new in the U.S. Our brilliant, self-correcting constitutional system not only anticipates it, it encourages constant friction, balancing opposing interests and the ebb and flow of power.
Thanks to the luminous genius of its principal author, James Madison, and the other framers, the Constitution contains a fully loaded toolbox to repair, improve or replace what does not work as well as some “break the glass” emergency survival kits.
As Madison famously wrote in Federalist 51: “Such devices should be necessary to control abuses of government…If [people] were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern [people], neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary in framing a government which is to be administered by [people over people].”
The title of this 1788 federalist paper coined the now well-known phrase “checks and balances” which Madison used to make the case for the intricate structure of a republic built to last, no matter what.
We should have faith that the intentional design of our constitutional democracy enables fixing what American voters have recently determined is not working.
We are getting a vivid daily education about how checks and balances work, such as the co-equal role of the Senate with the president in the appointment of senior national officials.
The prospect that the Senate would not be a rubber stamp and exercise its independent authority to advise and consent or reject the nomination of former U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz to serve as attorney general ultimately resulted in the nominee’s withdrawal from consideration.
We also are observing how the protections in the great First Amendment hold government accountable and check abuse of government power that impinges on religious freedom, freedom of speech, the press, to peacefully assemble and to petition the government.
And 14 words in the 22nd Amendment limit the service of any president: “No person shall be elected to the office of President more than twice.”
In these fraught times, it is especially worth also appreciating the unfinished symphony of American federalism, the great unsolved conundrum of the founding of our republic.
That is, how America’s unprecedented theory of a federal system of dual sovereigns, involving national and state governments which are both empowered by the citizens of overlapping geographies can and should work in practice.
Federalism always has been a constantly evolving mechanism for states to focus political attention and generate interstate political pressure to change or depart from national government action.
Federalism, in essence, is an idea, not a brittle rigid structure and like the flexibility of the entire Constitution, it is a source of strength.
The influence of groups of state attorneys general, sometimes concurrently on both sides of an issue, is a contemporary development that is likely to be visible in the aftermath of the 2024 election.
There are ample reasons for being earnestly hopeful and committed to the hard work of sustaining our democracy. Patience, time and understanding are required.
America’s long experiment with democracy by trial and sometimes error rests on the acceptance of the sovereignty of the people and the informed consent of the governed. That constitutional premise in turn depends on the willingness and engagement of citizens to keep abreast of what government officials are doing and to exercise their right and duty to vote.
It is a good time for legal educators to fulfill their responsibility to provide civic education to the public about how our constitutional system of government is supposed to work.
This knowledge empowers citizens and strengthens the foundations of our democracy.