At RealClearPolitics independent Greg Orman blames the establishments of both political parties for the anger so apparent in this year’s primary election cycle. And lawyers:
Sometimes these moments are simply examples of a Congress populated by lawyers with no practical experience in anything other than the inner workings of government. They enact policy prescriptions that favor the special interests that fund the Republican and Democratic parties—or embrace solutions that are well intentioned, but naïve.
Pass a trade agreement that’s going to eliminate a couple million jobs? No worries. A dollop of Trade Adjustment Assistance will solve that problem. A series of such decisions on trade policy, supported by both Democrats and Republicans, left millions of Americans economically dislocated. Those workers do not typically field a half-dozen employment offers from lobbying firms when they need a job—the path open to former members of Congress and their staffs. While free trade has led to lower prices for American consumers, our government has done a terrible job anticipating and planning for the negative effects of globalization on millions of American workers.
I doubt that the general election will defuse the bomb.
I know we’ve had this discussion before, since its not at all clear to me that there are more lawyers in Congress than before, but to to me this description is of someone who is not necessarily a lawyer: “lawyers with no practical experience in anything other than the inner workings of government.”
That could simply be someone who has graduated from law school, who may or may not have ever tried a case, prepared a pleading, will or contract. There are many public administration jobs for lawyers, whose role is that of consultant, and wouldn’t be expected to do any of these things, or at least not without the involvement of outside counsel.
For example, Dick Durbin: Upon grading from law school: (i) legal counsel to Lieutenant Governor Paul Simon from 1969 to 1972, (ii) legal counsel to the Illinois State Senate Judiciary Committee from 1972 to 1982. Congress ever since.
Lets not forget the endless ocean of drones busily cranking regulations to implement if not refine the legislation. Secure in their civil service jobs, pensions and looking forward to post retirement careers advising how to work around those regs.
I don’t have any particular hostility to lawyers, generally, or lawyers in Congress in particular. I think that it can hardly be denied that lawyers are presently over-represented in Congress. Federalist 35 (Hamilton) is relevant:
As I may have said before, I see lawyers as native guides through the jungle of government. Some lawyers in Congress is a necessity; all lawyers is not an improvement.
There are many examples of areas in which Congress is woefully poorly informed including business, economics, and technology. Increasingly, the military. More Congressmen who actually have some knowledge of these areas would help.
Counterargument:
“Using a unique data set that extends over two hundred years of the occupational background of members of the U.S. Congress, it confirms widespread perceptions that lawyers have long dominated Congress. However, it also finds that this dominance is in slow, but steady, retreat. In the mid-19th century almost 80% of members were lawyers. By the 1960s this had dropped to under 60%, and by 2015 it was less than 40%. The article puts forward a set of arguments about why lawyers have traditionally had such success in U.S. electoral politics, including their affinity for lawmaking, the politicization of the U.S. justice system, and advantages in terms of career flexibility and access to resources. It claims lawyers’ electoral decline is largely the result of changes within the legal profession as well as new electoral competition, particularly from an emerging professionalized political class comprised of political aides and members of civil society that have made politics a career.”
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2684731
The counterargument was to the linked piece.
From the study: In addition to 15% who had been Congressional aides, “in the 114th Congress there were also 32 former campaign aides, 26 former state legislative aides, 12 former governor aides, 11 former White House aides, as well as aides for other local, state, and federal officials.” “There were 28 members of the 114th Congress who had a Masters in Public Administration (MPA) or a Masters in Public Policy (MPP).”
In response to your first extract from the article, some of that is comparing apples and oranges. “Lawyer” didn’t mean the same thing in the 19th century as it does now. Most lawyers became lawyers by “reading law” and had careers other than being a lawyer. In other words there were landowners who were lawyers, merchants who were lawyers, and so on. My wife’s grandfather was a fairly distinguished California attorney who became a lawyer by reading law. He’d been a fieldhand, bookkeeper, and accountant, just to name a few of the things he’d done. That’s unheard of now.
Fifty years ago a larger fraction of Fortune 500 CEOs were lawyers, too. Now it’s 10%. Of those about 15% had degrees from Harvard Law.
In reaction to the second extract, IMO having an MPA or MPP if that’s all you’ve done is uniquely disqualifying from holding public office.
There are many, many examples of members of Congress who’ve never done anything other than graduate from law school and hold public office. I find that troubling.
I saw this study a couple of months ago and didn’t read it, but it kind of blows my mind. This is the composition of the 114th Congress:
Law: 36.5%
Business/Banking: 25.5%
Public Service/Politics: 23.0%
Education: 12.4%
Congressional Aid: 8.4%
Medicine: 6.9%
Real Estate: 4.7%
Agriculture: 3.4%
Journalism: 2.1%
I don’t know why Congressional Aid is separate from Public Service/Politics, but neither existed in Congress before WWII, and really takes off in the 1990s.
When Bob Michel retired and was seceded by Ray LaHood, who had been on his staff for 12 years, I thought it was a fluke due to Michel’s domination of the district and surprise of the announcement. LaHood had access to the rolodex and was a first-mover. And then the adjacent district to the south was won by a Congressional staffer for a Congressman from another adjacent district.
The study suggests that the move from law to public policy backgrounds improves diversity in terms of women and minorities, which might be true. But the cost is that political connections become more important. Who is Congresswoman Cheri Bustos? Durbin’s former babysitter.
seceded = succeeded
The “Business/Banking” category is facetious. If you’re going to lump them together why not lump Law/Public Service/Politics/Congressional Aide?
The study is less negative about lawyers than I feared:
More than half of lawyers had spent some time in private practice, about 20% had been prosecutors, and 7% had been judges.
There have been a number of high-profile nominal lawyers in the over the years, such as Robert Byrd, Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer who never practiced, as well as those like Obama, Mitch McConnell and Ted Kennedy had short legal stints clearly directed towards politics. Maybe these are legacies of a bygone era.
The negative on lawyers in the report is that they are more likely to enter lobbying after service in office.
John Kerry is another example of a long-time senator who was a lawyer who had never actually practiced law. Like Bill Clinton, I think he might have had a short stint as an ADA.
SCOTUS is the worst. It appears that to ascend to the highest bench, you should be:
1. A lawyer with a humanities major.
2. Virtually unschooled in STEM or Economics.
3. Holder of a JD from either Harvard or Yale.
4. Either a Roman Catholic or a Jew.
Merrick B. Garland, Obama’s latest appointee, will fill the bill exactly, though his attaining National Merit Scholar status hints that he may know some science and math. At least his appointment would cause the court to be “balanced” at 4 Jews and 4 Roman Catholics !
I think lawyers can be a pretty diverse bunch, tax lawyers, business lawyers, patent lawyers, medical malpractice lawyers, etc. They can be professional generalist, or they can have a narrow niche, it all depends.
A major concern for me is that in one of the most important legal areas, crime and punishment, prosecutorial experience is way over-represented in all branches of government. Judge Garland is typical, he prosecuted federal drug-trafficking cases. Public defenders are almost non-existent, and even those with a civil-rights background tend to stay away from the judicial committee.
Almost all of the problems in the criminal system are legislative in origin, but are reported as police and prosecutorial failures because the media likes a bad guy, and doesn’t do systems analysis or examine incentives. And I don’t see that situation getting fixed with an array of accountants, STEM occupations or physicians. Frankly, I don’t see it changing much at all.
I’ve avoided thinking about Judge Garland too much. His having prosecuted drug-trafficking cases is interesting. People tend to justify what they’ve done. It’s a natural human tendency.
It suggests he would be harder on drug-related cases than he might otherwise have been.