With the election of the Democrats to (slight) majorities in both houses of Congress this November, Congressman Charles Rangel of New York's 15th District has once again submitted a bill (as he did in 2003) for re-instatement of the military draft.
Congressman Rangel states among his reasons two points that are particularly interesting in how they appear to triangulate a Viet-Nam era mentality into their construction. This goes for many who share Rangel's view. Ironically, in the first case, despite media pre-occupation with that war, there is a clear ignoring of its lessons:
"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way,"
The irony of this statement is that Viet Nam showed, as the political polemics in the 2004 election demonstrated, is that the political favored are able to avoid such a draft by a number of means, or can manipulate the form of service if they do go. Most can wearily recall the debate over the exact form of President Bush's national guard service, or the fact that despite having served, Senator John Kerry's swift-boat stint was also remarkable for its brevity. Rangel's proposal would do nothing to deter warmaking by the elite, for they are not impacted by it until such actions go extremely awry or costly.
His intention is sound, but a military draft would do nothing to deter aggressive foreign policy or war-making of the character Congressman Rangel rightly fears. Arguably it would lessen the quality and committed morale of the present force, comprised in large part by men and women who believe in their cause and have chosen to so serve. But more important, in my opinion, Rangel misses the point. It is the "undeclared war" the so-called "police action" or "intervention" that poses the greatest threat of the kind of wars Rangel wants to deter. Restoration of the demand for a formally declared war, and fully moblized effort, would do far more to deter such conflicts, by making it necessary to believe in them first enough to do so. It also would carry with it the abolition of an excessively `peace-time' mentality of concern with courts, civil offense, and "business as usual" among corporations "bidding" in the war zone that confuse and demoralize the national morale and public commitment to the war.
It goes without saying that if an administration cannot muster the support to get a declaration of war, then we should probably not be engaging in it, that it likely is indeed, the kind of war Congressman Rangel and others want to avoid and think they can by re-instating a draft. Threats that fall short of earning a declaration of war should fall under a category of special covert handling (theft, bribes, assassination, etc) or when appropriate, international coordinated efforts. The case of the first UN Gulf War of 1991 and NATO's intervention in Bosnia would be examples of the latter. But even these as the current war in Iraq shows, must be pursued cautiously in their launch. In any case, they certainly are out of line if you do not have a professional volunteer military, and are using conscripts. Consider the current call for intervention to stop genocid in Darfur;this too,can go disastrously awry or become `endless' if not defined, or engaged in by unwilling conscripts.
Congressman Rangel's other point reflects a vexing and persistent urban myth. This myth is even more disconcerting than the belief that a draft would deter elite politicians from poorly planned decisions:
"A disproportionate number of the poor and members of minority groups make up the enlisted ranks of the military, while most privileged Americans are underrepresented or absent."
However, this is not borne out by the facts brought to life in various studies, or even the most casual canvassing of college discussion boards, and simple hearsay of who knows who that is serving kind of talk. There is a marked difference from Viet Nam, which seems to be the only war that the mainstream media and most politicians (because of their age range, their generation) seem able to relate to or know about. In other words, they keep forgetting that it is a voluntary military, and very educated and articulate one at that, in many ways far more so than the general population.
A useful study helps point out some of this, which is otherwise apparent just in the character of the reports and witnesses we have from military persons serving overseas:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda05-08.cfm#_ftn1
Quote:
"However, our research shows that the volunteer force is already equitable. That is, it is highly likely that reinstating the draft would erode military effectiveness, increase American fatalities, destroy personal freedom, and even produce a less socioÂeconomically "privileged" military in the process.
In summary, we found that, on average, 1999 recruits were more highly educated than the equivÂalent general population, more rural and less urban in origin, and of similar income status. We did not find evidence of minority racial exploitation (by race or by race-weighted ZIP code areas). We did find evidence of a "Southern military tradition" in that some states, notably in the South and West, provide a much higher proportion of enlisted troops by population."
Unquote.
Instead, arguably the "most privileged Americans are underrepresented or absent" that Congressman Rangel should have in mind are those of the poliical elite and the policy-makers of both parties. However, on reflection, it seems the real point is that the vision Rangel has in mind is a past-tense one, and like so much of the media and politics today, one that sees the present only through the lens of Viet Nam and the 1960's. Even the composition of the military in Viet Nam was not as underclass as the myths portray, but it is certainly true that the political elite were able to engage in far more obvious evasion than say in World War II. Where he may have a point of similarity is a similar evasion of accountability among leadership, but there is no need to change anything regarding the troops except increasing the speed by which their equipment needs are met by mobilization.
If Congressman Rangel and those of like mind want to deter or otherwise limit the scope of possibly misconceived wars like the current one in Iraq, they should look instead to restore the need for a formal declaration of war and put severe constraints and limits on the amount of military action that can be ordered without a national mobilization. If a "draft" is needed, it is really for new generation and voices in D.C. that are not enamored with or marinated in the views of the 1960's and stuck in the lens of the Viet Nam era kind of war.
By the way, this goes equally true for the administration and the recently toppled Republican majority --- they did indeed fight this war something like Viet Nam, complete with excessive unrebutted press influence on policy, and concern with appearances and domestic partisan vote politics rather than decisive victory. Likewise to President Johnson's time, a similar mulish insistence on not recasting plans and failure to feel free to press home the defeat of the enemy while presenting an obtuse face to the public and failure to counter-act ill-informed and even stupid media characterizations, or own up to error where the press was correct, has prevailed. In this sense, the critics of the war, such as Rangel, that make comparisons to Viet Nam are unfortunately not far from the mark.
Let's not compound the mistakes by repeating one of Viet Nam's greatest ones: a national conscription in service of an unaccountable and politicized government. Especially with a fairly illiterate-with-history band of bureaucrats that are more politicians and lawyers than statesmen.
- Anthony
Showing posts with label Political Commentary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Political Commentary. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
A different interpretation of mid-term elections/2006 trends
Upon my return, clearly the most immediate and current public event is the ongoing avid discussion of the possible meaning (besides the obvious one of `wanting change') behind the almost complete expulsion of the Republican majority from both houses of Congress by the Democrats, albeit recognizing that the margin in the Senate remains very slim. Its all the more significant that the victors, the Democrats, are themselves quick to acknowledge what most of the pundits are pointing out, and that is this: the turnover is not a mandate for `Liberalism/Progressive' platform, for it was mostly moderate/conservative platform Democrat candidates that won. In Connecticut where the voters had a choice other than Republican or Democrat Senator running as an independent, that man, Joe Lieberman, won. This conclusion follows from the ironic fact though while it was singularly evident that the Republican Congress and especially the White House was very resistant to re-shaping plans and presenting any kind of coherent vision about getting a handle on the Iraq War and the war against Jihadism, it was equally obvious the Democrats had no counter-plan to offer at all. At least not one that was really spelled out. What follows runs a little long, but I am synthesizing several accumulated factors here.
Now it so happens that this election at first sight contains many seemingly contradictory threads ----- fairly conservative platforms referring to the definition of marriage, or attempts at setting English as a national language and getting some control of the border fiasco, passed in many places. Even in places where the Republican and `supposed' "conservative" candidates otherwise lost. So whatever the vote was `about' if anything, it shows a clear rejection of incumbents in most cases, while at the same time showing little to no migration or shift to the so-called `liberal/progressive' social agendas.
In my opinion, part of the answer is hidden in that last sentence, and finds a clue in the recent announcement by Wal-Mart that due to a substantial customer demand, they were renewing use of saying `Merry Christmas' in most cases this holiday season. This was quickly followed by Sears and other retail chains. While on its face, this may seem trivial, its more important for the clue it provides about the real common trend here. No, the restoration has nothing to do with a theocratic `agenda' or even Christmas. It is however, an example of a mainstream rejection of what is perceived as a hyper-political correctness agenda (the abolition of Judeo-Christian references in the public sphere.) Oddly enough, it finds an echo, a common thread in the imbroglio and local governments increasingly acting on the the border issue. Here again, it was in defiance of social elites determined to push their paradigm of unrestricted borders in the name of some social concept of inclusion even at the expense of dissolving the rules of citizenship. Since the national government had abdicated its responsiblity, the public has tried to use the local government levers available.
What is this common thread? Its actually a potentially very encouraging one, and is the real silver lining of this election outcome for any concerned American not holding to the excessively global or postmodern philosophical outlook popular in much of academia and the major media. The thread is a simple one: the `silent majority' is becoming less silent, and is increasingly tired of being ignored in the name of political-correctness or partisan opportunism, or second-guessing global approval. The American people, both Democrat and Republican, made pretty loudly clear for the past two years they wanted some kind of border reform. But the elites in the media and Washington D.C. patently ignored this. Going even so far as to make a debate out of the self-evident fact that illegal immigrants are first illegal, and cannot and should not be confused with the rights of immigrants properly settled and employed here. All that differed among the public was which measures might be best, but there was rough consensus that something needed to be done. This consensus was ignored with breathtaking arrogance from the President of the U.S. right on through the editorial boards of the major newspapers. From the Dubai ports scandal to newspaper talking heads calling the simple logic of wanting to enforce borders `racist' the elites in power snubbed the voters perspective.
A similar consensus existed regarding Iraq and the war on Jihadism; most want some kind of clear plan, an articulated victory, and above all, an accountability for obvious failure. (This also comes into play regarding the Hurricane Katrina fiasco, which was a rare case of a perceivable change being made in response). Once again, the media with its strong post-modernist and relativist leanings does not reflect the public's concern. For example, despite all the hand-wringing on the issue, the "wiretap" and `detainees' debate pushed by the Democrats and the ACLU style factions received very little support from the public. For better or worse, they didn't fear wiretap of the enemy, so much as just wanted more transparency from the White House. Alas, it wouldn't readily give this, not even to simply obtaining retroactive oversight or after-the-fact green light, and this conveys a picture of abuse of power to those concerned with valid Constitutional precedents, as does excessive sword-rattling in public statements.
On the other hand, the Democrats found that the public is not as concerned with how a brutal and contemptible enemy is treated, as they are with the poor direction and handling of the War against Islamic terrorism. The view on GITMO is that the status of the detainess should have been defined, and then them left to stew there till the end of the war as long as that takes, just like other PoWs. Not given access to our civil courts, a privilege of citizeship Jihadists have not earned, and which wasn't granted to Axis soldiers. When partisanship is set aside and the common citizen talks, they are generally incensed about both the vaguely sympathetic and tolerant treatment activists and media give toward the enemy's terrorist actions, from airing their propaganda to calling them `freedom fighters' when they clearly relish blowing up the innocent and unarmed as much as any soldiers. But they equally resent the overly-abrasive and stubborn behavior of the administration in refusing not only to concede errors, even misrepresentations, but more important, to correct them and re-cast plans more decisively. Even among the hard-line base of the Republicans, for example, there was a dead-tie in feelings that SecDef Donald Rumsfeld needed to be replaced in favor of a fresh start. Among the rest of the nation and the Republican center, that opinion was close to overwhelming.
When recent events are looked at this way, I submit a common thread is increasingly discernible: where possible, where the working public still has a way to "out-shout" and be heard over the cacophony of Republican and Democrat party spin machines, and postmodernist, even nearly anti-Western media and editors, and dare one say it, hostile to Judeo-Christian ethics even as a philosophy, then the public voter is starting to USE that way, and use it to be heard. Hence the surprise and shock of the various talking heads and `experts' at the `apparent contradiction'. This `contradictory' thread actually has a strong Libertarian content, of wanting more accountability and less catering to special fringe interests of any kind, and especially that of the foreign enemy. Its important to notice here too, that that also goes for an over-zealous assertion of right-wing views, particularly fundamentalism and perceived attempts to impose beliefs or dictate how science is taught. In general, the public is wanting to avoid the extremes the pundits are actually promoting, whether it be the left wing one of wishing to impose radical income redistribution or the legislating morality epithet usually aimed at the right wing.
As we head into the Thanksgiving and Christmas Holiday season, its meet to close on a remark about that issue. Its apparent very triviality is actually a signpost of significance. The majority is tired of specialized fringe pressure groups imposing their demands on it, and seeking to violate the mainstream rights every bit as much as the minority ones they are claiming. The simple fact is that it is not a large segment of the public that wants to empty Christmas of its content, even those of other faiths, and big business, unlike politicians, generally is a bit more responsive to quantity of feedback rather than noise volume. Likewise, it is not a large segment of the citizenry that wants to grant blank checks and amnesty to illegals. In general, then, the fall of 2006 is not showing either a "Liberal" or "Neocon" trend, but rather an increasingly apparent desire to reject extremes and to get America's sense of identity and unity back.
This rejection of the sensationalized and hyped extremes then, is the real apparent trend, but its road is difficult and uncertain. Its really the media, judges/lawyers and the political pundits that are short-circuiting this process. Starting on November 7th, this paradigm of extremes has met a long overdue backlash and the beginning of a demand for sanity. Whether the best answer to accomplish this is a reformation of one of the major parties, or a third party becoming truly viable, remains to be seen.
- Anthony
Now it so happens that this election at first sight contains many seemingly contradictory threads ----- fairly conservative platforms referring to the definition of marriage, or attempts at setting English as a national language and getting some control of the border fiasco, passed in many places. Even in places where the Republican and `supposed' "conservative" candidates otherwise lost. So whatever the vote was `about' if anything, it shows a clear rejection of incumbents in most cases, while at the same time showing little to no migration or shift to the so-called `liberal/progressive' social agendas.
In my opinion, part of the answer is hidden in that last sentence, and finds a clue in the recent announcement by Wal-Mart that due to a substantial customer demand, they were renewing use of saying `Merry Christmas' in most cases this holiday season. This was quickly followed by Sears and other retail chains. While on its face, this may seem trivial, its more important for the clue it provides about the real common trend here. No, the restoration has nothing to do with a theocratic `agenda' or even Christmas. It is however, an example of a mainstream rejection of what is perceived as a hyper-political correctness agenda (the abolition of Judeo-Christian references in the public sphere.) Oddly enough, it finds an echo, a common thread in the imbroglio and local governments increasingly acting on the the border issue. Here again, it was in defiance of social elites determined to push their paradigm of unrestricted borders in the name of some social concept of inclusion even at the expense of dissolving the rules of citizenship. Since the national government had abdicated its responsiblity, the public has tried to use the local government levers available.
What is this common thread? Its actually a potentially very encouraging one, and is the real silver lining of this election outcome for any concerned American not holding to the excessively global or postmodern philosophical outlook popular in much of academia and the major media. The thread is a simple one: the `silent majority' is becoming less silent, and is increasingly tired of being ignored in the name of political-correctness or partisan opportunism, or second-guessing global approval. The American people, both Democrat and Republican, made pretty loudly clear for the past two years they wanted some kind of border reform. But the elites in the media and Washington D.C. patently ignored this. Going even so far as to make a debate out of the self-evident fact that illegal immigrants are first illegal, and cannot and should not be confused with the rights of immigrants properly settled and employed here. All that differed among the public was which measures might be best, but there was rough consensus that something needed to be done. This consensus was ignored with breathtaking arrogance from the President of the U.S. right on through the editorial boards of the major newspapers. From the Dubai ports scandal to newspaper talking heads calling the simple logic of wanting to enforce borders `racist' the elites in power snubbed the voters perspective.
A similar consensus existed regarding Iraq and the war on Jihadism; most want some kind of clear plan, an articulated victory, and above all, an accountability for obvious failure. (This also comes into play regarding the Hurricane Katrina fiasco, which was a rare case of a perceivable change being made in response). Once again, the media with its strong post-modernist and relativist leanings does not reflect the public's concern. For example, despite all the hand-wringing on the issue, the "wiretap" and `detainees' debate pushed by the Democrats and the ACLU style factions received very little support from the public. For better or worse, they didn't fear wiretap of the enemy, so much as just wanted more transparency from the White House. Alas, it wouldn't readily give this, not even to simply obtaining retroactive oversight or after-the-fact green light, and this conveys a picture of abuse of power to those concerned with valid Constitutional precedents, as does excessive sword-rattling in public statements.
On the other hand, the Democrats found that the public is not as concerned with how a brutal and contemptible enemy is treated, as they are with the poor direction and handling of the War against Islamic terrorism. The view on GITMO is that the status of the detainess should have been defined, and then them left to stew there till the end of the war as long as that takes, just like other PoWs. Not given access to our civil courts, a privilege of citizeship Jihadists have not earned, and which wasn't granted to Axis soldiers. When partisanship is set aside and the common citizen talks, they are generally incensed about both the vaguely sympathetic and tolerant treatment activists and media give toward the enemy's terrorist actions, from airing their propaganda to calling them `freedom fighters' when they clearly relish blowing up the innocent and unarmed as much as any soldiers. But they equally resent the overly-abrasive and stubborn behavior of the administration in refusing not only to concede errors, even misrepresentations, but more important, to correct them and re-cast plans more decisively. Even among the hard-line base of the Republicans, for example, there was a dead-tie in feelings that SecDef Donald Rumsfeld needed to be replaced in favor of a fresh start. Among the rest of the nation and the Republican center, that opinion was close to overwhelming.
When recent events are looked at this way, I submit a common thread is increasingly discernible: where possible, where the working public still has a way to "out-shout" and be heard over the cacophony of Republican and Democrat party spin machines, and postmodernist, even nearly anti-Western media and editors, and dare one say it, hostile to Judeo-Christian ethics even as a philosophy, then the public voter is starting to USE that way, and use it to be heard. Hence the surprise and shock of the various talking heads and `experts' at the `apparent contradiction'. This `contradictory' thread actually has a strong Libertarian content, of wanting more accountability and less catering to special fringe interests of any kind, and especially that of the foreign enemy. Its important to notice here too, that that also goes for an over-zealous assertion of right-wing views, particularly fundamentalism and perceived attempts to impose beliefs or dictate how science is taught. In general, the public is wanting to avoid the extremes the pundits are actually promoting, whether it be the left wing one of wishing to impose radical income redistribution or the legislating morality epithet usually aimed at the right wing.
As we head into the Thanksgiving and Christmas Holiday season, its meet to close on a remark about that issue. Its apparent very triviality is actually a signpost of significance. The majority is tired of specialized fringe pressure groups imposing their demands on it, and seeking to violate the mainstream rights every bit as much as the minority ones they are claiming. The simple fact is that it is not a large segment of the public that wants to empty Christmas of its content, even those of other faiths, and big business, unlike politicians, generally is a bit more responsive to quantity of feedback rather than noise volume. Likewise, it is not a large segment of the citizenry that wants to grant blank checks and amnesty to illegals. In general, then, the fall of 2006 is not showing either a "Liberal" or "Neocon" trend, but rather an increasingly apparent desire to reject extremes and to get America's sense of identity and unity back.
This rejection of the sensationalized and hyped extremes then, is the real apparent trend, but its road is difficult and uncertain. Its really the media, judges/lawyers and the political pundits that are short-circuiting this process. Starting on November 7th, this paradigm of extremes has met a long overdue backlash and the beginning of a demand for sanity. Whether the best answer to accomplish this is a reformation of one of the major parties, or a third party becoming truly viable, remains to be seen.
- Anthony
Saturday, June 17, 2006
Congressional Democrats make impressive move
Friday June 16, 2006 saw a heartening step away from blatant and obvious corruption seen all too commonly these days with members of Congress and Executive branch. They voted to take away Congressmen William Jefferson's seat on the powerful Ways and Means Committee in the wake of deep implication in a rather embarrassing bribery scandal and FBI discovery of $90,000 stashed in his freezer.
Jefferson, one of the Democrat representatives of Louisiana, has served eight terms and used his powerful influence to apparently serve his own interest during the Hurricane Katrina disaster in New Orleans. Rescue forces were diverted to his home to evacuate objects among which seems to have been this freezer cache of money. Those actions causing some raised eyebrows and ridicule at the time, the FBI raid and bribery scandal since have gone far to answer some of the questions raised by his antics during the Hurricane's aftermath. The details of the case are still being sorted out, and Jefferson has not yet been charged with a crime pending further investigation of the money's origins, etc. The impression of self-serving corruption, however, is impossible to avoid, and has in fact, been routinely concluded by members on both sides of the aisle. It is this which makes Friday's vote significant.
For what is even more encouraging, is it came at the hands of the much maligned Democrat minority. It was Jefferson's own Democrat leaders and colleagues that strongly pushed for Jefferson to lose his seat on the House and Ways. This effort was spearheaded by their House party leader, Nancy Pelosi who rightly concluded that regardless of the official status of FBI charges at the moment, the abuse of office and position is abundantly clear. Pelosi has of late been saying, as part of an attack on a perceived "culture of corruption" about the Majority Republican leadership, that the Democrats will reaffirm standards of accountability in ethics among their representatives. The result has been rather interesting.
An Associated Press announcement notes:
"House Democratic leaders pushed for his [William Jefferson's] Ways and Means Committee assignment to be taken away. Nancy Pelosi, the party's House leader, has said repeatedly that Democrats will be held to the highest possible ethical standards, while she and others in her party accuse Republicans of nurturing a "culture of corruption."
"Mr. Jefferson has legal issues that he and his family must deal with. Mrs. Pelosi has political issues that she and her caucus must deal with," said Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina, chairman of the Democratic caucus.
His remarks reflected the political forces at work - an attempt by Pelosi, D-Calif., to make ethics a campaign issue in a Democratic bid to win control of the House this fall."
More at: House pulls lawmaker from powerful committee
The last quoted comment on the part of Associated Press suggests that the action was a form of political `pandering' to contrast with the Republicans and in part, it most likely is just that. Yet still, that position misses the basic point. The fact is that a precedent of renewed accountability has been set, and with it, a public expectation for it to continue.
Whether one believes the motive sincere or cynical, the House Democrats have now set a provocative standard and challenge to raise the level of ethics on Capitol Hill. To `walk the talk' as it were, of which, very little has been seen to date. The whole point is that Jefferson is being removed on ethical grounds, not legal ones, and that is important for any attempt to start raising the bar. Too often precise legal loopholes or carefully worded statements or outright obstructionism have been used to shield close to self-evident mischief. With the recent resignation of Speaker of the House Tom Delay, and now the removal of William Jefferson from the Committee on ethical grounds alone, a change of sort seems afoot. Certainly a change in the `rules' that will likely guide political campaign tones this fall.
Naturally some people and organizations like the Congressional Black Caucus have said that Jefferson was entitled to a Constitutional presumption of innocence. This is correct for a legal matter, but not for an appearance of `above reproach' that a powerful Committee position requires, or should. A presumption of innocence is not mandated in matters of ethical behavior where perhaps the letter of the law has been followed, but the use and prestige of an office is not. It only makes sense in a time when Congress, and particularly the out-of-power party, are bringing strong pressure on the Executive branch to respond more ethically and transparently, that Nancy Pelosi turn around and demand that of her colleagues. Nor has the CBC indicated otherwise either, making no opposition in the vote or calling for a roll-call other than stating a concern for the uprecedented nature of Pelosi's action.
The actions of both parties to date have hardly been to a high standard and the absurd and wide-ranging scandal around the convicted Republican Lobbyist Jack Abramoff comes immediately to mind, as well as others. But this year has seen a marked "stiffening" in Congressional standards and response to both internal matters and particularly in opposition to the White House's use of power. Two recent examples being the opposition in defiance of veto-threat to President Bush's Dubai `ports deal' and his own party's pressuring the resignation of Republican House Majority Leader Tom Delay from his position. It is interesting to wonder if something of a counter-reaction is now setting in. Legislatures go through cycles of corruption and reform, and one can hope that one is beginning now. For House Republicans stand in solidarity with the decision, and with the Democrats, have turned around and are demanding the return of Jefferson's documents, and hard drives seized from his Washington D.C. congressional office. Thus, having rebuked and chastised one of their own, Congress has then in turn closed ranks and is confronting the ever-growing expansion of executive power and tendency of the administration to roughshod precedents and even legal barriers.
One can hope that such a phase is now coming into being, and whichever party comes out strong in the November mid-term elections, one hopes that this `turning back' toward accountability trend continues. For it is significant that this also extends to the charges leveled:
"Congressional leaders in both parties have made it clear they do not want to interfere with the investigation into allegations against the Louisiana lawmaker, even though they have sided with him in this legal dispute".
As for William Jefferson, the Democrat's taking the initiative to take away his Committee seat has, IMO, somewhat cleared Capitol Hill of his coming shipwreck. Missteps and abuse of position will always occur -- its enough that they be held immediately accountable at least informally where the legal rigid parameters of the law perhaps fall short. This helps defuse the perception of blatant nepotism, favoritism, cronyism and avoidance of responsibility that can otherwise grow.
After all, these are times where transparency and higher ethics are in need more than ever. For as "Both the political punishment and the legal case appeared to be without precedent. Jefferson has not been charged with a crime, and officials said last month's FBI search of his congressional office was a first." With such turmoil afoot, the time is ripe to make an effort to do much better and to not leave open doors for malfeasance. If this gesture jump-starts this process, it is a good thing itself.
Well done, House Democrats!
- Anthony
Jefferson, one of the Democrat representatives of Louisiana, has served eight terms and used his powerful influence to apparently serve his own interest during the Hurricane Katrina disaster in New Orleans. Rescue forces were diverted to his home to evacuate objects among which seems to have been this freezer cache of money. Those actions causing some raised eyebrows and ridicule at the time, the FBI raid and bribery scandal since have gone far to answer some of the questions raised by his antics during the Hurricane's aftermath. The details of the case are still being sorted out, and Jefferson has not yet been charged with a crime pending further investigation of the money's origins, etc. The impression of self-serving corruption, however, is impossible to avoid, and has in fact, been routinely concluded by members on both sides of the aisle. It is this which makes Friday's vote significant.
For what is even more encouraging, is it came at the hands of the much maligned Democrat minority. It was Jefferson's own Democrat leaders and colleagues that strongly pushed for Jefferson to lose his seat on the House and Ways. This effort was spearheaded by their House party leader, Nancy Pelosi who rightly concluded that regardless of the official status of FBI charges at the moment, the abuse of office and position is abundantly clear. Pelosi has of late been saying, as part of an attack on a perceived "culture of corruption" about the Majority Republican leadership, that the Democrats will reaffirm standards of accountability in ethics among their representatives. The result has been rather interesting.
An Associated Press announcement notes:
"House Democratic leaders pushed for his [William Jefferson's] Ways and Means Committee assignment to be taken away. Nancy Pelosi, the party's House leader, has said repeatedly that Democrats will be held to the highest possible ethical standards, while she and others in her party accuse Republicans of nurturing a "culture of corruption."
"Mr. Jefferson has legal issues that he and his family must deal with. Mrs. Pelosi has political issues that she and her caucus must deal with," said Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina, chairman of the Democratic caucus.
His remarks reflected the political forces at work - an attempt by Pelosi, D-Calif., to make ethics a campaign issue in a Democratic bid to win control of the House this fall."
More at: House pulls lawmaker from powerful committee
The last quoted comment on the part of Associated Press suggests that the action was a form of political `pandering' to contrast with the Republicans and in part, it most likely is just that. Yet still, that position misses the basic point. The fact is that a precedent of renewed accountability has been set, and with it, a public expectation for it to continue.
Whether one believes the motive sincere or cynical, the House Democrats have now set a provocative standard and challenge to raise the level of ethics on Capitol Hill. To `walk the talk' as it were, of which, very little has been seen to date. The whole point is that Jefferson is being removed on ethical grounds, not legal ones, and that is important for any attempt to start raising the bar. Too often precise legal loopholes or carefully worded statements or outright obstructionism have been used to shield close to self-evident mischief. With the recent resignation of Speaker of the House Tom Delay, and now the removal of William Jefferson from the Committee on ethical grounds alone, a change of sort seems afoot. Certainly a change in the `rules' that will likely guide political campaign tones this fall.
Naturally some people and organizations like the Congressional Black Caucus have said that Jefferson was entitled to a Constitutional presumption of innocence. This is correct for a legal matter, but not for an appearance of `above reproach' that a powerful Committee position requires, or should. A presumption of innocence is not mandated in matters of ethical behavior where perhaps the letter of the law has been followed, but the use and prestige of an office is not. It only makes sense in a time when Congress, and particularly the out-of-power party, are bringing strong pressure on the Executive branch to respond more ethically and transparently, that Nancy Pelosi turn around and demand that of her colleagues. Nor has the CBC indicated otherwise either, making no opposition in the vote or calling for a roll-call other than stating a concern for the uprecedented nature of Pelosi's action.
The actions of both parties to date have hardly been to a high standard and the absurd and wide-ranging scandal around the convicted Republican Lobbyist Jack Abramoff comes immediately to mind, as well as others. But this year has seen a marked "stiffening" in Congressional standards and response to both internal matters and particularly in opposition to the White House's use of power. Two recent examples being the opposition in defiance of veto-threat to President Bush's Dubai `ports deal' and his own party's pressuring the resignation of Republican House Majority Leader Tom Delay from his position. It is interesting to wonder if something of a counter-reaction is now setting in. Legislatures go through cycles of corruption and reform, and one can hope that one is beginning now. For House Republicans stand in solidarity with the decision, and with the Democrats, have turned around and are demanding the return of Jefferson's documents, and hard drives seized from his Washington D.C. congressional office. Thus, having rebuked and chastised one of their own, Congress has then in turn closed ranks and is confronting the ever-growing expansion of executive power and tendency of the administration to roughshod precedents and even legal barriers.
One can hope that such a phase is now coming into being, and whichever party comes out strong in the November mid-term elections, one hopes that this `turning back' toward accountability trend continues. For it is significant that this also extends to the charges leveled:
"Congressional leaders in both parties have made it clear they do not want to interfere with the investigation into allegations against the Louisiana lawmaker, even though they have sided with him in this legal dispute".
As for William Jefferson, the Democrat's taking the initiative to take away his Committee seat has, IMO, somewhat cleared Capitol Hill of his coming shipwreck. Missteps and abuse of position will always occur -- its enough that they be held immediately accountable at least informally where the legal rigid parameters of the law perhaps fall short. This helps defuse the perception of blatant nepotism, favoritism, cronyism and avoidance of responsibility that can otherwise grow.
After all, these are times where transparency and higher ethics are in need more than ever. For as "Both the political punishment and the legal case appeared to be without precedent. Jefferson has not been charged with a crime, and officials said last month's FBI search of his congressional office was a first." With such turmoil afoot, the time is ripe to make an effort to do much better and to not leave open doors for malfeasance. If this gesture jump-starts this process, it is a good thing itself.
Well done, House Democrats!
- Anthony
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
