A Piece of the Action
I'm too young to understand the great debate over the Watergate congress. As is usually the case in contested historical analogies, however, what matters is not the facts about 1974 but those about 2006. Max is, I think, clearly correct that whether or not the class of '74 was a disappointment, there's a risk that the class of '06 will be, though I would frame the risks a bit differently.
Basically, there are two schools of thought within the Democratic Party about what the desired endgame of the "K Street Project" and associated matters is. On the one hand are people who see this as an opportunity for a new, more disciplined, less corporate, more ideological Democratic Party to come to power and spread goodness all around. On the other hand are people who see this primarily as an opportunity to get Democrats a piece of the action, much as they had in the late 1980s and early 1990s. As my colleague Sam Rosenfeld has observed a lot of intra-party tensions, especially in the House, that are ostensibly about national security are actually about this.
Matt
Is there no middle? Why isn't a Democratic Party driven by a desire to make things better for Americans and in the world a worthy goal? Shouldn't there be a recognition that ideology like religious fundamentalism is a confort that helps avoid thinking? As for getting a piece of the action that seems like a sure way to return to the historical norm of Republican presidents.
January 2, 2006 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know I am naive, but I just don't see putting forth any effort to retake the House of Representatives if the goal is simply to get a piece of the action. A corrupt politician is a corrupt politician, no matter which party he claims to represent. Any candidate who I think is running for the personal financial benefit, or who will vote against the voters interests just to repay campaign donations, loses my vote automatically.
It does look like the Democrats reluctance to speak out against the extremes of the Bush administration may be because of envy of their success overriding anger at their excesses. I just hope we haven't descended to that level across the board.
January 2, 2006 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's no reason why we can't have both. The K street project wasn't so much about funneling money to sitting congresspeople as it was about having a high paying job to put your friends in, so they can stay in town.
Nobody wants to move back home to Kansas. Some people aren't lawyers, so working for a firm is out. Even if you are a lawyer, most law firms actually want you to get clients and bill hours. If you can work on K street, much of your job can be talking to your friends who are still in office, or your old boss who is now the LD for a Seantor.
We need to have cushy, high paying jobs for Dems to take in Washington. Nobody should be force to move back home to the midwest. Count me in for elected officials that stand for something and a piece of the action for his or her freinds.
January 2, 2006 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
A corrupt politician is a corrupt politician . . . . HoppyCalif
Short of outright bribery, corruption is in the eye of the beholder.
It is evidenced by the legislator supporting a bill whose effect will undermine (somewhat? greatly? unforgivably?) his or her political philosophical goals. Thus, before charging a politician with corruption, one must state clearly his or her policy goals.
Do Democrats have clear policy goals such that they could be charged with corruptly prostituting them?
January 2, 2006 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Beautifully put. In the seventies, I was a Republican activist, motivated by what seemed a party philosophy including individual liberties, enough antitrust and monitoring to ensure a free market, rational national security including public health, and considering the population a resource. As things developed, the religious conservatives gained control, and I felt the party left me, not that I left the GOP. Sometimes I call myself a "Recovering Republican." :-)
My knowledge of US political history tells me that not being affiliated with a party removes a large part of my political power. I think there are many such people looking for a new home. Bill Clinton's nomination acceptance speech struck me with a message of inclusion, a message significantly missing from the Bush administration and GOP spokesmen.
I don't want to be in the position of voting against the worst of the candidates, but I want to see leadership that doesn't go to the alternate pole of extremism from the Republicans. I want leadership that, as Daniel put it, is focused on making things better in the US and the world, not on an aggressive social ideology.
For example, in a time when the Administration is pushing for things, in the name of national security, that may unnecessarily intrude on civil rights, why is there not a specific Democratic counterproposal, rather than mostly complaining about what Bush is doing? The conference committee actually introduced some balance into the PATRIOT act; there is, I believe, more opportunity, driven by concern about Bush 43 initiatives, to find compromises on the Hill. In my view, there should be a Democratic initiative to get out a clearly balanced policy paper regarding the balance of security and rights, and to make that a viable issue in the 2006 Congressional races. I want recognition of the damage that the latest version of trickle-down economics is doing to the strategic human resources of the United States.
I don't see "ideology" as a response. I see implementable alternatives as response. I see reaching for the center, including the independents, as a response.
January 2, 2006 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen, either I am reading you wrongly, or misunderstand what you have said, which are entirely possible, or that is the most cynical thing that I may have read. Yet, in 2006. Interesting comments: a young person, a Republican in the 70s...my goodness; my world is expanding as we (in a way) speak.
January 2, 2006 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cynical? How so?
January 2, 2006 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Taking Ellen out of first place:A Democratic (capital D) military
fighting Democratic Wars creates liberal pork. National security is
exactly and only about using foreign affairs and military spending to enhance partisan advantage.
January 2, 2006 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
If there is any lesson one should learn from post Watergate efforts to reform -- it is to beware of ill-considered consequences of reform thrusts.
What needs much consideration now is to arrive at a clear definition of what's wrong -- given Abramoff, Cunningham, the K-Street Project and all the rest. We need a defination of the problem that is clear to all. Only then should we fasten on this or that reform -- And I would add the reforms ought to be as simple as possible, as straightforward as possible, and the means for inforcement ought to be clear and accessable.
January 2, 2006 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Outright bribery in the eye of the beholder? Yes, our regulatory laws are weak and the loopholes are varied and many; and the politicians that use them injudiciously are ever increasingly hard to catch, and the millions of dollars that flow onward, and so little upward, do little good for the people for whom they might be intended. This has always been so, and, having been a student during the seventies, I now take much of this as a part of the nature of the frailities of government by human beings. However, the corruption that is surfacing now has clearly been an abrogation of our Constituion and the separation of powers. And, of course, lying at the presidential level about this abuse which directly affects the people, has never been treated favorably, historically. Policy goals, even in my jaded view, should have nothing to do with it.
January 2, 2006 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
It may seem quixotic but I believe there needs to be not a new party but a new activism. The focus needs to be not on collective benefits or elevating selfish to a high American value.
January 2, 2006 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you serious in saying that if there were no partisan motivations, there would be no foreign affairs or military spending, and thus activities? Are you proposing total isolationism?
January 2, 2006 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I remember of Watergate was a time of political gridlock as the nation struggled with the carcass of Nixon's foreshortened presidency. But I think in the coming elections, the stimuli are largely external. The <i>action</i> as it were, is not only in the homeland, but at the various fronts. The large questions for which both parties must offer new answers to "get a piece of the action" seem to be --"What do we do about Iraq in the short and long run?" and "How do we fight the war on terror, both at home and abroad?" I think both sets of old answers from the two parties will be coming in for a fresh, hard look by the voters in '06 and '08. Someone will get it Right and someone will get it Wrong.
January 2, 2006 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't understand. What would be the goal of this activism, as opposed to what it is not?
January 2, 2006 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that's what happened post-Carter, and why we're plagued with cowardly Shrums and the whole DLC. These people will compromise nearly anything to remain a part of the game. It takes courage to rather be right than President. Seen any lately?
Simply refusing to play would mean a loss of table scraps from the beast that feeds the Repug monster. And you know how hard they fight for those table scraps.
January 2, 2006 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was prescriptive, rather than descriptive. Foreign policy, military spending, and war should be tools to get Democrats elected. Otherwise, Democrats are unilaterly disarming, because that is what these things mean to Republicans. One would hope that good policy and good politics can be made to coincide. I am the opposite of an isolationist.
"this as an opportunity for a new, more disciplined, less corporate, more ideological Democratic Party to come to power and spread goodness all around. On the other hand are people who see this primarily as an opportunity to get Democrats a piece of the action, much as they had in the late 1980s and early 1990s." ...MY
The problem might be that MY sees a conflict here. Congresspersons are elected to serve their districts, and get re-elected. If "a piece of the action" means pork and campaign funds, that is what Congresspeople do. Democratic pork usually involves jobs, benefits, opportunities, security. Those can be provided in a military framework. We currently have a Republican (capital rather than labor-intensive) military fighting a Republican-style war (lots of graft to the top, little concern for the soldier, and it has no defined conclusion.)
January 2, 2006 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose I don't see foreign policy and military spending as other than supporting a consensus view articulated by leaders of vision. I certainly see war in Clausewitzian terms, as the extension of national policy, by military means, after other means have failed.
I see neither of MY's conflict alternatives as viable. I'm a political independent, an ex-Republican, who would like to see a viable alternative partyy -- but get very nervous when I hear things such as "more ideological". Of course pork barrel politics are a factor in Congressional elections, but not the only one. If those are the other alternatives, then perhaps I need to find a third party or a second country.
As far as war being capital-intensive, I see nothing Republican about that, but simply the changing model of how wars are fought by first-world countries.
January 2, 2006 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
The rules should work the other way. In the absence of clear convincing evidence of prior preferences. Once ANY financial benefit no matter how trivial accrues to a legislator from an interest group, any vote favoring that interest group should be prima facie evidence of corruption.
January 2, 2006 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
And badly, or with constrained options. This was a choice of the Nixon administration, not something that just happened. The abandonment of the draft and move to a volunteer professional military had many consequences, but certainly one was to make the military more conservative and Republican. Democrats went along for their own reasons, probably not realizing where it would lead.
One could imagine an army, considerably larger, not as well-paid or as well-trained, that contained linguists, country specialists, doctors, lawyers, engineers, plumbers, carpenters that could do pacification and nation-building and would be a more Democratic army.
No one seems to want this but me. I might suggest, given this President's and his party's Imperial ambiitions, that gaining some presence in the officer corps should be a top Democratic priority. One hates to think it necessary.
January 2, 2006 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you familiar with the proposals of Thomas Barnett, who has left the Administration, but wrote the book _The Pentagon's New Map_? Very briefly, I think some of his concepts fit what you are describing. He sees the world as a "connected core" with reasonable economics, and the less developed countries as "disconnected".
With that as a model, he sees two complementary types of intervention force, a better descriptor than military. The first, "Leviathan", is high-tech military and able to overcome virtually any conventional resistance. Leviathan would be likely to be composed of either single-country or a few advanced country militaries.
Once "Leviathan" has taken down major opposition, it would phase out in favor ot "system administrator", seen as a potential multinational, nation-building force with some peace enforcement/police capability, but not primarily a combat organization.
While not strictly following Barnett's works, we do have the relatively recent example of a British intervention "Leviathan" taking down the major warlord in Sierra Leone. The British unit withdrew, first offshore as a visible backup, and then completely, as West African ECOWAS/ECOMOG peacekeepers took over, also reestablishing the elected local government.
I believe there is significant value in the US military staying essentially apolitical, and I believe Republicans are overstating the level of support -- as distinct from philosophical sympathy -- that exists in today's US forces. I don't want to see politicization there by either party's supporters.
January 3, 2006 2:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
The institutional problems with the Democratic Party is not that we have too little discipline, it is that the people trying to impose that discipline at the national committees have too strayed far from the vision of FDR.
I don't mind that we have corporatists and unlimited Free Traders in the Party. I kind of mind them insisting that markets are All. I have no problem with Social Conservatives in the Party. I kind of mind Party leadership insisting that I compromise my fundamental beliefs to accomodate them.
Certain influential sectors of the Party have simply internalized the Big Lie. That is all cases and in all circumstances Big Government is the Problem. This has caused them to abandon social solutions altogether. Friends the New Deal was not a failure. It was a huge success and one that was built on with substantial success by the Fair Deal and the Great Society. Not every program worked, but then not every multi-billion weapons program works (and few get cancelled just because they are colossal failures).
Progressive taxation works and needs to be restored to the tax code. The United States should make early and strong moves to Universal Medical Coverage. These views wouldn't even have moved me off center in 1974, these days I can just sense people who think of themselves as being left-liberal having heart attacks at the mere thought of restoring Reagan era tax rates.
Much as the Republican said above, I didn't leave the Party, the Party left me. And the solution is not to keeping handing the keys to those who insist we need to follow the Republicans to the Right in hopes of nabbing a share of the center. No we need to start dragging the center back to the left.
And that means passion and not DCCC or DLC generated message discipline. People can start by defending the legacy of FDR. Social Security is working exactly as intended, no dollars were "looted", the bonds are not "worthless IOUs". Cato set out in Fall 1983 to sell you the Big Lie and succeeded beyond their dreams.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj3n2/cj3n2.html
This is the year we strike back and the weapon is progressive public policy proposals, and not process for its own sake. Unleash your inner FDR.
January 3, 2006 5:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
In the interest of full disclosure, I have rather given up on "left" and "right" as useful labels, and the idea of a long straight line as describing the extremist endpoints. Rather, I find the spectrum to be better defined by a Moebius strip, where it becomes hard to distinguish the farther points. When it comes to some of the activists, however, I picture a bar, rather like the one in Star Wars, with empty Klein bottles of bad hyperdimensional booze resulting in hangovers to Grover Nordquist, Michael Moore, Ann Coulter, Ramsey Clark, Rush Limbaugh and Noam Chomsky.
In addition to being hung over, Clark shows the effects of having eaten the hyperdimensional moldy cork.
So, I don't see that moving the center to an arbitrary "left" is necessarily an answer. I do agree that knee-jerk proposals for government intervention are not always the best solution, especially when the intervention is to solve a perceived problem, but has unexpected consequences.
For example, the generally Republican initiatives to deregulate electrical power has created a situation where we are more dependent on an interconnection grid among utilities. The grid was never engineered for this extensive a degree of interaction, and probably needs $20-30 billion in improvements to harden it against accidents and skilled terrorists. Demands for short-term share value, however, makes it infeasible for utilities to make the improvements.
Healthcare economics began with a loophole during WWII, and has steadily tottered with interventions that have unforeseen consequences, or simply shift the problem. I'm currently reading a fair number of Cato papers in this area, and they seem to miss some fairly basic points, such as a need for public health (e.g., epidemic detection and management) functions. On the other side, well-intentioned legislation such as EMTALA, requiring emergency treatment as a matter of social policy, didn't follow through and cover the mandated costs through general tax revenues. Instead, it shifts the cost of unpaid care to the better-able-to-pay sick, a small matter when those patients pay under insurers with large market power, and far more when out-of-pocket. [Perhaps I should start a healthcare topic]
January 3, 2006 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
But the rest of your argument would require some careful analysis and refutation.
But anyone could make a good start at understanding your comment by reading 1972's It usually starts with Ayn Rand an over the top exploration of where the far right meets the far left in a Kumbaya "I hate the Man more than you do moment" now apparently supplemented by a sequel I have to buy It still begins with Ayn Rand.
Or else you could just visit some of the side rooms at your local Libertarian convention. Good concept, really screwed up ideas about implementation.
January 3, 2006 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Bruce. That confrontation in that book is rolling down my mental viewscreen, and I'm laughing so hard tears are forming. I met my first wife (now a good friend who would also laugh at this) sort of on rebound from the Libertarian movement as she investigated a DC Young Republican meeting. She found that it was principally a social occasion, but sort of threw herself at me when she discovered I could actually use "libertarian" in a complete sentence.
I had just gotten a copy of the book, and it turned out that Jerry Tucille had actually toned down some of the nuttier Libertarians. If you remember the fellow that went around in a black jumpsuit with a gold dollar sign on his chest, they had dated for a time. I don't remember if his gold cape "for formal occasions" got into the book, but I am sure that her quoting his self-description of himself as "benevolent dictator of a libertarian commune" didn't make it. Hey, it was still the sixties (well, maybe the very early seventies)
I have a series of running jokes with my pet ultraconservative evangelical friend, in which we amaze ourselves by coming to the same conclusion through diametrically opposed reasoning. In the matter of Ramsey Clark, we differ only in that I believe that anyone he offers to defend deserves a fair trial before his execution, while Chris just wants to skip the administrative process. :-)
There are SO many silly possibilities: someday, I hope that the National Enquirer will reveal that Ann Coulter is the love child of Jerry Rubin and Pat Nixon.
January 3, 2006 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink