In what has become a familiar annual ritual, as we turned our clocks forward to make the switch from standard time to daylight saving time (DST) social media lit up with fierce debates over the merits of this peculiar coordination device. More surprisingly, this time those who pined for a permanent shift to DST found their wishes quickly channeled into legislation, which was not just introduced, but passed by unanimous consent in the Senate on March 15.

One of the bill’s co-sponsors, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), expressed delight at this speedy legislative action: “Boom, it’s a miracle!”

Something extraordinary happened here, but it was far
from miraculous and nothing we should celebrate.

Buzzfeed reports on the strange process that unfolded. In short, senators, staffers, and Hill watchers of all sorts were surprised the bill had been offered, and none of the legislators in the chamber at the time took the opportunity to object. Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS), whose hold on the bill ensured that he was notified, decided not to object; and other senators who were known to oppose the policy were left in the dark.

The article’s cheeky subheadline
offers one way to interpret this: “An inspiring story about how presumptuous
Senate staffers can accidentally make history.”

But there are good reasons to
avoid doing things this way. For all we hear about a dysfunctional Senate with
Democrats and Republicans at each other’s throats, the truth is that, even now,
the body continues to rely on customary courtesy in order to function.
Unanimous consent agreements are a major part of that order, which means that
care needs to be taken to maintain each Senator’s goodwill. If members feel
that floor procedures are being manipulated to take advantage of them, rather
than giving them opportunities to fairly present their views on an issue, this
delicate balance can easily fall apart.

There’s an even more fundamental
value at stake here, which is that we should want important and contentious
policy changes to be considered and debated rather than hastily pushed through
into federal statute books. Yes, lots of people like to grouse about Congress
failing to get things done, and there are reasons for concern, but that can’t
mean that we simply give up on deliberation and public reasoning as the basis
of our public decision-making. Our legislature isn’t just some mechanism for
making policy changes, it’s supposed to be the forum for genuinely free
political debate. That honors our democratic commitments and, by and large,
helps us make good choices.

Some readers are probably gasping,
“Oh, come on!” Can I really be so naive as to think that extended congressional
debates enlighten anyone, or push us toward wise policies?

As it happens, the DST example presents just about a perfect instance of why deliberation is needed. Popular as the “never fall back” position seems to be among the very online, it is a foolish policy — and one has to be willfully blind to believe it is somehow “politically uncontroversial.” As Josh Barro has incisively argued, perma-DST would mean that tens of millions of Americans would not see the sun before 8:30 a.m. for weeks on end in the winter. Perhaps even more persuasive is the fact that this experiment was already made in 1974, and it turned out to be wildly unpopular among regular Americans, such that Congress reverted to the clock-changing status quo within the year. A push to extend DST by two months in 2005, which many on Capitol Hill imagined might be a low-controversy energy saver, ran into massive objections.

Of course, none of that decisively
resolves the issue. There is a case for perma-DST. As a parent of small
children, who dreads having to wake them up in the pitch dark, I’m not buying
it, but that’s beside the point, which is this: Having an actual congressional
debate on this issue would force proponents to grapple with the real downsides
involved, instead of saying “Boom!” and acting like they’ve scored some easy,
painless win.

Fortunately, the Senate is not a lawmaking body unto itself, and so our legislative process has more chances to shine some daylight on this issue before we make an avoidable blunder. The House is often derided as much less deliberative than the Senate, but in this case it has the opportunity to be the more responsible and thoughtful chamber. We should hope our representatives — from all over the country, including districts whose residents would go months without seeing the sun before work hours — conduct the spirited and well-informed debate that the Senate bypassed if they want to turn this into actual legislation.

The post Saving daylight in our legislative process appeared first on American Enterprise Institute – AEI.