In a parliamentary system, Reichert would be in trouble

America's federal system rejects the parliamentary government of Europe and most modern democracies. We fear concentrated power, preferring three separate branches providing checks and balances.

But in the past decade, particularly since 2000, changes in the U.S. House of Representatives have reversed longtime congressional practices and created a de facto parliamentary system in which the executive and legislative branches are the same.

Current Republican leadership in the House allows no major legislation to reach a vote unless it has a majority of Republican votes — inhibiting bipartisan agreements that split GOP ranks. In addition, conference committees, where differences between House and Senate versions of the same bill are reconciled, frequently have no Democratic members from the House.

One sign of this is the remarkable fact that in nearly six years, President George W. Bush has vetoed only one bill. Another is the high support ratings Bush has obtained in Congress — with both chambers run by Republicans, Bush's support has been the greatest since John F. Kennedy's short term of 1960-63.

The most intriguing question, therefore, for the 2006 congressional elections is whether unhappy American voters will rise up and punish the ruling party — as they would in Europe or Canada, for instance — or whether they will follow traditional American voting practices and vote "for the man, not the party."

No one has more at stake in this equation than Rep. Dave Reichert, the freshman Republican from Seattle's Eastside suburbs.

Reichert has been a faithful Republican stalwart, with a 2005 presidential support record of 86 percent, above the 81 percent of House Republicans and only slightly below that of Eastern Washington's conservative Republicans Doc Hastings and Cathy McMorris (87 and 89 percent, respectively).

So in a district carried by Sen. John Kerry in 2004 and with a majority opposing Bush's policies in Iraq, Reichert should be a dead duck, right? Well, not quite — despite the maneuverings of congressional Republicans, most Americans still don't think we have a parliamentary system.

Which makes examination of Reichert's actual votes, rather than simply his voting percentage, of some interest. Reichert's record is one of a man trying to reflect his constituency but also keeping in mind that party leaders are important, too — particularly when it comes to raising campaign funds.

Reichert's most-visible opposition to both Bush and House leadership was his vote to override Bush's veto of stem-cell research. Perhaps his most important opposition vote was to support a Democratic measure requiring higher standards for interrogation of prisoners, a measure that passed over presidential and House GOP opposition.

Reichert also opposed his party on a bill weakening the Endangered Species Act and he opposed the Terri Schiavo fiasco.

These opposition votes would be expected to play well in the 8th District, allowing Reichert to cite them as evidence of his independence. "Vote for the man, not the party." Most recently, Reichert went along with the GOP's outrageous linking of a minimum-wage increase with cuts in the estate tax — but then he bucked the party line to oppose more offshore oil drilling.

Nonpartisan congressional observers (Congressional Quarterly, National Journal, Project Vote Smart) place Reichert's 2005 record among GOP moderates, slightly right of center. His ratings with pro-business groups were around 90 percent; with liberal groups, under 30 percent. The League of Conservation Voters gave him a 28 percent rating; the fundamentalist Family Research Council, 62 percent.

No one would label Reichert a maverick. He's a man on a tightwire.

Reichert wins as "Good Cop Goes to Washington"; he loses as "Republican Stalwart Backs Bush."

Party leaders, always pragmatic, are perfectly willing to let congressmen in districts such as Reichert's take a walk on issues important to their constituency — as long as they don't get too far out of line or even desert the party when it comes time toorganize the House.

That Reichert is endangered is evidenced by the visits of both Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney to rally the moneybags for Reichert's campaign. It is very rare for a House member to draw both top officials.

What does Reichert owe in return? Not a vote on a specific issue. What he owes is a vote on an organizational issue — when the Congress organizes in January 2007, he will vote with Republicans to organize the House.

That's what it's all about, these presidential visits and so forth.

Which brings us back again to that parliamentary business. A vote "for the man, not the party" is also a vote for Speaker Dennis Hastert and all those Texans chairing committees.

Floyd J. McKay, a journalism professor emeritus at Western Washington University, is a regular contributor to Times editorial pages. E-mail him at floydmckay@yahoo.com