When I was a congressional reporter, my favorite assignment was covering the annual State of the World hearings held by the House and Senate Foreign Affairs committees. I’ve always been interested in American foreign policy and was fascinated to watch the secretary of state describe the international landscape and explain the administration’s policies.
I especially appreciated the hearings that were presided over by the House committee’s chairman, Lee Hamilton. He was a moderate Democrat from southern Indiana who served in Congress for 34 years. Hamilton was whip-smart and Midwestern courtly. He was substantive, stern, but also kindly. Above all, Hamilton was strikingly fair-minded and passionately committed to Congress’ constitutional responsibility to conduct itself as an independent branch of government. In his view, Congress should work with, but not be a supplicant to, the executive branch. Congress, Hamilton said, should be “both an informed critic and a constructive partner of the president.”
James Baker, President George H.W.’s Bush’s secretary of state, memorably testified to Hamilton’s panel in 1992. It was a time of profound change in the world given the recent implosion of the Soviet Union and the stunningly abrupt end of the Cold War.
Hamilton’s questioning of Baker was a tour de force. He posed respectful, informed and penetrating questions. There was no rhetoric, no baiting, no badgering. Hamilton pressed Baker hard, but without any trace of theatrics or posturing. He was trying to understand the Bush administration’s plan to deal with global uncertainty and construct a “new world order.”
Baker was as formidable and as impressive as Hamilton, and the esteem the two men had for each other was palpable and affecting. Attending that hearing brought feelings of pride in our form of government and respect for the quality of our leaders.
The following year, Hamilton presided over his committee’s State of the World hearing with Warren Christopher, President Bill Clinton’s secretary of state. Before it began, I wondered if Hamilton, a loyal Democrat, would go easy on Christopher, the top diplomat of the new Democratic administration. He did not.
Hamilton was more challenging of Christopher than he had been of Baker. Hamilton pressed the secretary of state to explain the Clinton administration’s foreign policy, challenging it to set aside slogans from the campaign and articulate a coherent foreign policy for the United States. The tone was serious and probing. There was no game-playing. Hamilton made it clear that he wanted to be helpful but was not there to carry water for a Democratic administration. He was a representative of the legislative branch overseeing the executive branch. Hamilton’s primary concern was advancing the national interest.
Placing the public interest over personal and party considerations is the essence of statesmanship. And to the extent that partisanship comes into play, you should expect more from yourself and your party than from others. If you are a loyal Republican, you should take pride in being part of an honorable tradition. Yours is the party of Abraham Lincoln, Dwight Eisenhower and George H.W. Bush, and you should expect it to conduct itself accordingly. And if you are a Democrat, you should relish being the custodian of a venerable tradition. Yours is the party of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy and you should expect it to comport itself with that standard of excellence.
Unfortunately, the ethos of party pride has been supplanted by the phenomenon of negative partisanship. Many Americans are displeased with their party but are willing to cut it endless slack because they simply loathe the other.
The Hamilton model of statesmanship provides current senators and representatives with a valuable road map. By all indications, the 119th Congress needs both practical guidance and a moral compass.
I found it deeply disappointing when House Speaker Mike Johnson removed Mike Turner, the respected Republican chairman of the House Select Intelligence Committee, from his post because Turner has had the temerity to occasionally criticize Trump.
The Senate confirmation hearings for several of Trump’s Cabinet nominees were also disheartening, particularly the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing for Pete Hegseth to be the secretary of defense. This is one of the most important positions in our government, and this person can affect the fortunes — and even the survival — of our country.
However, Republican senators were so terrified of Trump and the potential fury of the MAGA base that they set aside their constitutional “advise and consent” responsibilities. They ignored Hegseth’s scant national security expertise and management experience and sidestepped his troubled personal life. They seemed more committed to currying favor with Trump than protecting our country.
I offer a modest suggestion for Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune. Invite Hamilton, now retired in Indiana, to speak virtually to a joint meeting of Congress. Hamilton could provide a tutorial on the responsibilities of Congress as a separate and co-equal branch of government.
He could also offer a sterling example of personal honor, professional integrity, institutional patriotism and statesmanship.
John T. Shaw is director of the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute. Shaw’s columns, exclusive to the Tribune, appear the last Monday of each month. His new book is “The Education of a Statesman: How Global Leaders Can Repair a Fractured World.”
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.