By JACK R. VAN DER SLIK, Senior Legislative Scholar,
Illinois Legislative Studies Center,
Sangamon State University

Football and
legislative
politics

DOES legislative politics seem darkly confusing? Perhaps an analogy can illumine it. Let's compare legislative politics with football. Both games begin with two teams. In the legislature they are the Donkeys and the Elephants.

In football the central object is the ball. In the legislature it is the issue on the floor. Football aficionados know that after each play a clean ball is put onto the field. In the legislature there is a new bill, action or amendment for each play. Dedicated fans of both games like to watch a sustained effort. In football that is a long scoring drive with lots of plays and a culminating score. The legislative parallel is the enactment of a major policy — tax revision, class X criminal code, or no fault" divorce — by a majority coalition that sticks together to pass the bills necessary to effectuate the policy.

Armchair fans go for the razzle-dazzle of a "flea flicker" play. The quarterback hands off to the running back who goes left. He gives off to the left end coming back on a reverse, who laterals back to the quarterback, who throws a long pass for a score. Distant legislative observers like the razzle-dazzle of a legislative media event. During 1981 a commonplace fight between Chicago Donkeys and downstate legislators on the complex issue of funding for mass transit in the Chicago area became an occasion for ridicule by Mike Royko, political color commentator for the Chicago Sun-Times. If downstate legislators did not want to support a funding solution, let downstate secede! Shortly, several downstate legislators, decked out in uniforms, helmets and battle gear from a bygone era, marched into the chambers to "take over the rostrum" and symbolically capture the seat of government for downstate. The press, forewarned of the high-jinks, featured front-page pictures of the victors. Interestingly, the transportation issue remained stalemated and the seceders actually got their way.

The end of a football game can be stretched out by the two-minute offense. A remarkable number of plays occur. The sides may trade touchdowns, and often the game is decided in the closing seconds. So it is in the legislature. In the closing days a "logjam" of bills get action. Various leaders hold off agreement on certain key bills. Finally, bargains are made and both teams score, but sometimes one team definitely outscores the other.

Analogies break down. Football and the legislative game differ in major respects. One is complexity of organization. Football is a singular contest. But the bicameral legislature is a two-ring circus of simultaneous action. That bills must pass two chambers accounts for complications unparalleled in football.

Another legislative oddity is that team members appear to trade sides during the game: on some plays there are Elephants on both sides of the line of scrimmage and some Donkeys as well. A bill may pass with a bipartisan majority, or may fail from bipartisan opposition. In fact, strict party votes are unusual. That vastly complicates the game for spectators, whereas the players are used to it.

Another contrast is in the rules. Football rules are supposed to be neutral, and the sides even. Not in the legislature. Each team wants to be the majority, because the majority rules. The majority gets more seats on every committee. The majority picks the leader for the chamber. It chooses the parliamentarian and the doorkeepers. It decides all challenges to the rulings of the chair. The majority even chooses the best parking places.

Some generalizations from legislative football should lead us to a moral:

•     Nobody wins them all. Legislators play vigorously to win, but are prepared to lose. Even losing, one may gain allies and achieve respect which will help in later conflicts. Winning and losing institutionalizes give and take, bargaining and compromise.

•     Politics is a long-term game. The freshman legislator who proclaims plans for sweeping reforms, offers sharp tax cuts, and promises to solve RTA's problems swiftly can be dismissed as a fool and ignored by his teammates. It takes time to comprehend issues, establish credibility and become effective in making things happen.

•     The legislature gets vitality from ambitious members who seek stardom. A freshman aspires to a committee chairmanship. A chairman wants to be a party leader. A leader hopes to become governor. A state senator eyes a congressional seat.

These ambitions may cause rivalry, but they also stimulate the workmanship necessary to achieve. The aspirants play the long game, working to solve the intricacies of public policy. They seek out options, draw up bills, search out supporters and bargain for compromises. Why the grinding effort?

January 1982/Illinois Issues/35

The legislative game evokes similar responses. Real fans keep in touch with the participants, help in campaigns, gather signatures on petitions and write letters to legislators, lobbyists and newspapers. They rejoice in winning and suffer in defeat. More distant spectators keep informed, express opinions to friends, wear buttons and vote regularly. The apathetics could care less. "There's no difference between Donkeys and Elephants anyway!" The alienated reject any involvement.

Politicians are realists. They know many people can be ignored much of the time. When ambitious legislators seek advancement through policy actions that will win recognition, they play for the people who are watching. So it is the people who pay attention, take sides and become involved that affect the future for Illinois. In contrast to football, the legislative game shapes the real world in which we live.

Moral: If you don't care about legislative politics, it won't care about you.

36/January 1982/Illinois Issues