REFLECTIONS

In defending Congress and its constitutional role over several decades, Fisher became a scholar of national and international renown. His scores of governmental and academic publications cover a range of interests and topics that few scholars today have matched. Consider his acknowledged expertise in legislative-executive relationships, federal budgeting, the presidency, the war powers, public law, and more. If interdisciplinary means competency in at least two disciplines, Fisher is clearly multidisciplinary in his approach. His sophisticated understanding of so many disciplines made him an invaluable resource to policymakers as they grappled with legislation that cross-cut many fields and raised numerous questions, such as a measure's constitutionality, its budgetary implications, or even what House or Senate procedures might enhance its enactment by the legislative branch. (Yes, Fisher is also knowledgeable about congressional procedures.)

Today, intellectual specialization characterizes the work of many academics, which fosters the fragmentation of knowledge. Fisher, by contrast, has long functioned as a “one-person” think tank. His in-depth familiarity with so many disciplines made Fisher an intellectual force in influencing the policy process in Congress and elsewhere. By elsewhere, I mean, as examples: Fisher being invited to the Department of Justice to talk to attorneys about constitutional interpretation; testifying on topics that range from recess appointments to budget reform to executive branch reorganization; or advising lawmakers on what the framers intended when they assigned Congress the power to “declare” war rather than “make” war. Not tied to a narrow policy paradigm, Fisher utilized a wide range of analytical perspectives to aid lawmakers in resolving public issues.

Fisher's well-written and thought-provoking analyses across such a wide range of topics constitute a remarkable record of achievement. Importantly, Fisher is comfortable blending two disparate worlds: the academic and the practical. To him, they were not fundamentally different universes but mutually reinforcing sources of insight, analysis, and learning. Thus, my definition of Fisher as a public intellectual is someone who can address issues of concern to policymakers (lawmakers, executive officials, and so on), as well as to academics and the general public. He is a scholar who can communicate thoughtfully, systematically, and clearly to diverse audiences: legislative, academic, legal, administrative, or foreign parliamentarians.

CAPITOL HILL PRACTITIONER

During his many years of public service to lawmakers and congressional staff, Fisher analyzed fundamental issues that still confront and confound lawmakers today—for example, how is power actually shared between and among the three branches of the federal government? By whose authority should the country go to war? How are constitutional conflicts, nay power struggles, resolved between Congress and the president? And Fisher answers these types of questions. As an example, long a champion of congressional prerogatives, Fisher has been consistent over the decades in supporting the view that the president must first seek congressional approval before he can use military force against another country. That Fisher's published studies influenced Congress's actions goes without saying, as these three examples illustrate.

IMPLICATIONS FOR POLITICAL SCIENCE

Political scientists regularly engage in discussions about the state and direction of their discipline. Some of these debates emphasize quantitative over qualitative research and analysis. Others contend that political science is not science, because it deals with messy political issues or problems that are sometimes hard to quantify. My sense is that Fisher, although open to the diversity of methodological approaches in political science, is not that interested in these kinds of debates. His focus is on analyzing and explaining a host of the constitutional, legal, budgetary, judicial, and administrative complexities that infuse our constitutional system. In the process, and this is something worth noting for budding political scientists, he is not reluctant to challenge conventional wisdom in a thoughtful and objective manner.

He is also willing to make judgments and draw conclusions based on his extensive research and where the weight of evidence leads him. Some political scientists suggest that making normative judgments is inappropriate for scholars. That is certainly not Fisher's perspective, which is why he is regularly invited to testify before congressional committees and to meet personally with lawmakers to discuss issues of direct concern to them, their constituents, and the country. In short, political scientists might include in their studies, as appropriate, options or recommendations that could assist problem solving by local, state, or national decision makers.

Political scientists might also emulate Fisher in three other ways. First, Fisher is a lucid writer. His many publications are accessible to virtually anyone with an interest in public issues. Clear writing is probably a skill he learned when he worked as a technical writer in New York City. “Writer's block,” moreover, is something foreign to Fisher. He has always been able to meet writing deadlines despite pressures that might emanate from various quarters, such as congressional party or committee leaders. To be sure, there are many political scientists who, like Fisher, are clear and productive thinkers and writers, such as Richard Fenno and Roger Davidson. There are also other political scientists who might place more emphasis on producing studies that are accessible—devoid of jargon and numeric equations—to many outside the discipline. This approach could enable public officeholders, not to mention many attentive citizens, to learn about important political science findings that could have a real-world impact.

Second, and closely related, Fisher has sought to inform a diverse audience. Consider that his scholarly works appear in peer-reviewed books and journals. In addition, he has published widely in newspapers, the National Law Journal, and in a variety of other publications that reach beyond an academic audience. Moreover, Fisher understands the audience he is trying to reach—whether it is judges, lawyers, political scientists, or the broader populace—and writes accordingly. Consider that Fisher prepares amicus briefs for submission to federal courts, as well as “op-ed” articles for publication in newspapers.

Third, Fisher's career as a practitioner exemplifies noteworthy public service. He worked for decades in a legislative world suffused with vigorous and rigorous debate on the major issues of the day. His professional reputation for objective and reliable information and analysis prompted many lawmakers and staff to ask Fisher for advice on how to turn their ideas, or his, into practical legislation. Fisher's contribution to this symposium indicates a number of ways in which scholars can bridge the academy and the world of practice. Thus, academics might consider a stint as a practitioner for a time, both to share their insights with policymakers, to enrich their scholarship and teaching, and to consider new ways of thinking about our constitutional system.

For example, Fisher's Constitutional Dialogues (Reference Fisher1988), which was based on his long Capitol Hill immersion in analyzing legislative-judicial interactions, emphasizes that constitutional law is made by all three coordinate branches. The Supreme Court may believe it is the “ultimate decider,” and it may be at times, but Congress and the executive have also been “instrumental in fixing the meaning of the Constitution.” Fisher bolstered that view in his book on Religious Liberty in America: Political Safeguards (Reference Fisher2002). The fundamental thrust of that book is that Congress has been more effective in defending religious liberty and individual rights than the federal courts. And in scores of books and articles, Fisher urged and reminded Congress that it is constitutionally relevant in deciding when the nation goes to war. The framers did not expect one person to make that decision. One legislative response, according to Fisher, is that Congress must exercise the many prerogatives and tools at its disposal, particularly its control over the purse strings, to check and balance the president.

To conclude, Fisher's great talent is to conduct thorough research of a topic, present the findings in a clear and well-organized manner, and to draw conclusions that expand our understanding of American governance. Other political scientists may disagree with those conclusions, but they surely will not dismiss them out-of-hand because his views and positions are thoroughly researched and genuinely thought-provoking. Moreover, Fisher operates from a value structure that is plain to those who read Fisher's works. To expand on my view of Fisher's big idea mentioned at the start of this short article, let me quote from the preface to Defending Congress and the Constitution:

In the final analysis, then, it is up to Congress to debate and decide through political and public processes the constitutional balance of power. After all, Congress is the nation's public arguing society. And for decades Fisher has contributed to the legislative and public conversation through the clarity and high quality of his research and analysis.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The views expressed are solely the author's own and do not represent those of any public institution to which he is affiliated.