It is difficult to not get into a political argument with this post. If you are a Republican or a Democrat, this is not “about you” or “against you.” The issue is a question of ethics as far as I can see.
The question in play is if we, as a society are ever willing to bend the rules because it may possibly be the best thing to do under the circumstances.
This post is about Representative Tammy Duckworth who is a Democrat from Illinois. She is 46 years of age and late in the third trimester of her pregnancy. I am told that at 46, her pregnancy is higher risk than a pregnancy of a woman who may be 26 or 36. Oh, and one additional factor: Tammy Duckworth lost both of her legs while serving our country. Her doctor won’t allow her to travel from Illinois to Washington, D.C. to vote in the party’s leadership meeting.
At issue is a rule in the Democratic Party rule banning voting by proxy. Democratic leaders, including Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi, have refused to allow Tammy Duckworth to vote from home.
In an article by Mike Lillis, a writer for The Hill entitled: “Dem anger flares over pregnant lawmaker,” we learn that the party is sharply divided on the Duckworth issue.
“’A lot of people felt that Tammy’s patriotism and sacrifice to this country warrants special consideration. And I’m one of those people who think it’s hard to make an argument that it does not require special consideration,’ Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) said afterward. ‘She’s given parts of her body for her country, and if it came to a vote, I would vote to give her a proxy.’”
However, on the other side:
“Democratic leaders, however, view the issue differently. On Monday, Pelosi argued that allowing Duckworth to vote by proxy could open the floodgates to other members requesting similar exceptions in the future. ‘The fact is that we don’t know what’s going on in the lives of many people,’ Pelosi told reporters on Monday. ‘You’re going to establish a situation where we’re going to determine who has a note from the doctor that’s valid or not. It’s really a place we shouldn’t go.’”
Both sides seem convincing, but –
It is interesting to debate both sides of this issue. Certainly, Tammy Duckworth has given so much to this country – and nearly her life – and then she decided to serve in Congress. It would seem that to travel to Washington, D.C. against her doctor’s orders to vote to determine party leadership, merits special consideration. We are talking about a vote on leadership not on a resolution to go to war or after a national tragedy.
On the other hand, Nancy Pelosi and many in the party are concerned about a slippery slope. Suppose a representative needs to go to a funeral, or is about to face surgery or has a daughter about to graduate from medical school? Do they get exemptions to vote by proxy as well?
However, another issue came to light:
“Behind closed doors, many Democrats suspect Pelosi’s denial could be related to her support for Rep. Anna Eshoo (D), a close friend and fellow Californian, in her race against Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) for the ranking member position on the powerful Energy and Commerce Committee. That race is expected to be tight — both sides claim to have the numbers to win — and Duckworth had sided with Pallone.”
We might be witnessing the phenomenon of politics within politics.
More than just a few insiders also muse if this case isn’t damaging to the party message as a whole. Isn’t the Democratic Party the party of the working class? Of the working woman? Isn’t Tammy Duckworth a working woman? The party leaders disavow that this situation is the same thing as legal entitlements to a woman on maternity leave. They point out that ensuring that working women have maternity leave rights, has little to do with this issue.
Behind the ethical times?
My first reaction is where are the written, clear-cut policies the party has developed to cover such a contingency? Apparently, there are none. It is hard to believe that no policy has ever been developed. Given no policies, situations like Duckworth’s are open to subjective interpretation and that allows politics to creep into the equation.
It could very well mean that what they say about the party’s inner circle is true; that Nancy Pelosi is excluding Duckworth so she can vote for her own cronies. Even if it is not true, the absence of policies will make everyone suspicious. This is true of government, it is true of sports associations and nonprofit charities and corporations as well.
Second, what would really be lost if a politician could offer input via Skype or mobile or FaceTime? Is being present in an internal rather than a full Congressional meeting really that critical?
Finally, I cannot help but wonder when the model will shift for politics. Many companies have workers who work in remote office conditions. Many organizations have committees that form and dissolve in online forums. Many companies are even trying to cut back on travel in order to save money. Why can’t our politicians take a clue from the rest of the American workplace? These are questions that demand answers.
