Politics Is Fake
Robert Gehrke reminds us that vapid partisanship is alive and well:
The Saga of Scooter is all about accountability, and it's about time we start holding Bill Clinton accountable.
At least that's the story, according to Rep. Chris Cannon, who has had Bill Clinton on the brain for more than a decade.
Appearing on Fox News Sunday, Cannon said that the mistake that was made was not prosecuting Clinton for lying to the grand jury, which is the crime Libby was convicted of and sentenced to 30 months in prison.
"By not having prosecuted Bill Clinton, we have said people get a pass," said Cannon, who was one of the House Managers, the Republican members who made the case for Clinton's impeachment.
"I think that we've healed. And having prosecuted Scooter Libby, I think goes to some degree to vitiate the problem that we created by a president of the United States who lied and obstructed justice," Cannon said. "People now know that you actually could go to jail for those things, or at least have huge penalties."
"Right." You actually could go to jail for those things, "unless, you know, you don't because the president tosses you a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card.
It is a fascinating commentary on the political condition of our Nation, to see how the party affiliation of the perp causes a reversal of positions on the act of perjury.
Both Libby and Clinton committed perjury. When Clinton did it, it was a grave offense, to Republicans, deemed worthy by many of removing a President from office for the first time in the Nation's history. Pretty stiff medicine. But, then, perjury hacked at the pillars of justice. Democrats, to the contrary, argued that perjury wasn't that big of a deal, given the circumstances.
When Libby committed perjury, it was a very big deal to Democrats. Now, MoveOn.org is through moving on, figuring the Nation actually could use a good impeachment (of Cheney, that is, since impeaching President Bush would give Cheney a promotion). Republicans, to the contrary, are a lot less vocal about perjury's destabilizing impact on pillars of justice, given the circumstances. "On second thought, perjury threatens to leave bothersome scuff marks on the marbled floors of justice."
This is where we have arrived. Before we can determine whether something is right or wrong, we need to know the party affiliation of the perp.
The Saga of Scooter is all about accountability, and it's about time we start holding Bill Clinton accountable.
At least that's the story, according to Rep. Chris Cannon, who has had Bill Clinton on the brain for more than a decade.
Appearing on Fox News Sunday, Cannon said that the mistake that was made was not prosecuting Clinton for lying to the grand jury, which is the crime Libby was convicted of and sentenced to 30 months in prison.
"By not having prosecuted Bill Clinton, we have said people get a pass," said Cannon, who was one of the House Managers, the Republican members who made the case for Clinton's impeachment.
"I think that we've healed. And having prosecuted Scooter Libby, I think goes to some degree to vitiate the problem that we created by a president of the United States who lied and obstructed justice," Cannon said. "People now know that you actually could go to jail for those things, or at least have huge penalties."
"Right." You actually could go to jail for those things, "unless, you know, you don't because the president tosses you a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card.
It is a fascinating commentary on the political condition of our Nation, to see how the party affiliation of the perp causes a reversal of positions on the act of perjury.
Both Libby and Clinton committed perjury. When Clinton did it, it was a grave offense, to Republicans, deemed worthy by many of removing a President from office for the first time in the Nation's history. Pretty stiff medicine. But, then, perjury hacked at the pillars of justice. Democrats, to the contrary, argued that perjury wasn't that big of a deal, given the circumstances.
When Libby committed perjury, it was a very big deal to Democrats. Now, MoveOn.org is through moving on, figuring the Nation actually could use a good impeachment (of Cheney, that is, since impeaching President Bush would give Cheney a promotion). Republicans, to the contrary, are a lot less vocal about perjury's destabilizing impact on pillars of justice, given the circumstances. "On second thought, perjury threatens to leave bothersome scuff marks on the marbled floors of justice."
This is where we have arrived. Before we can determine whether something is right or wrong, we need to know the party affiliation of the perp.
posted by steve u. at 7/10/2007
Subscribe
8 Comments:
The irony over the situation is stunning, isn't it? What really gets me is that this whole thing is getting more attention than fixing the failed immigration bill. I suppose our representatives in Congress just can't pass on good partisan jabs, even when there's work to be done.
The rhetoric from both sides of the whole Scooter Libby fiasco is so tired. I'm beginning to suspect that there really isn't any point in getting involved in debates on national issues. It always devolves into petty shouting matches about why the other side is worse than Satan.
In the meantime our nation is in the process of tossing itself into bankruptcy because there is no way we're going to be able to afford the entitlements our government has promised over the next few decades. Between Social Security and Medicare we're basically hosed. Yet anytime I hear a politician open his mouth on TV it is about something completely pointless like Scooter Libby's legal problems.
I'm afraid both sides are irredeemably screwed up. Local political issues are so much easier. All you have to do is remember Republicans are evil and Democrats are kind-hearted, noble, heroic types crusading against an unthinking brainwashed majority. :-)
The ugly side of politics has always existed. The age where politicians acted only out of altruism, avoiding self interest and avarice for power, exists only in people's imaginations. Madison understood this and argued that it was actually the self interest of competing individuals and groups that would keep the republic functioning. Transparency in our political systems can help keep some of the worst manifestations of avarice in check.
The Clinton and Libby comparison is interesting. Both men purjured themselves. But in both cases, there was a sense that the perpetrator was dealt with unjustly, being trapped in a technical matter that was separate from the matter that was at the heart of the investigation. Both men were seen by some as victims of witch hunts.
The pertinent question in both cases for most Americans is not whether some technicality was violated, but whether the process and the outcome actually served the cause of justice. Partisans will continue to see it favorably for 'their guy,' while seeing it unfavorably for 'the other guy.' But that's not how most Americans see it.
RU,
True, factions have been around since the beginning. But, other than the period before the Civil War, would you argue that the nastiness between factions has ever rendered government as inept as it is today?
Steve, I think that part of the reason for today's nastiness is the sheer size and scope of government.
I have previously argued that the factions are so nasty because the stakes are so low. But, in fact, the stakes are quite high. Who is going to control the vast and ever expanding regulatory power of government?
Milton Friedman argued that while we largely gave up on central planning after the fall of European fascism, we have subsequently grown government through regulation and transfer payments. With how extensive this has become, the power to control these factors is the power to control vast number of human lives.
The quest for power, the ultimate aphrodesiac for some, seems to justify just about anything. Anyone that is a threat to a faction's ability to get and use that power is that faction's enemy.
LaVarr Webb last week argued somewhat cynically that this might actually serve the American people by creating gridlock (a type of check and balance). A do-nothing Congress is not necessarily a bad thing.
It's not necessarily bad that Congress is too inept to do many things. But its complete lack of effective leadership (both parties) on immigration, social security, and Iraq -- to name just a few items -- is potential disasterous.
I actually am not pessimistic about the future at all. I believe, perhaps naively, that technology will give us a better handle on government than Americans have ever had. When people pull power away from insiders and experts, our government will do better.
You adeptly noted in a previous post that technology made the public revolt against the Senate immigration bill possible. They had been merrily doing business like it's been done forever and the technologically-enabled public came along and slapped them down for it. Many of them are not too happy about it. Some are grumbling, in essence, that technology made for worse government. I don't think that the citizens that opposed the bill think this way.
Make no mistake about it, the advent of new technologies will usher in a new breed of politician over the next few years. Will that be good or bad? I would like to believe, as you seem to, that it will overall be a good thing. I guess we'll just have to watch and see how it plays out.
Please note that when the stakes were very high, when the original Constitutional Convention convened, its members maintained a strict veil of secrecy until the final document was approved and made ready for ratification by the states. The fear was that if the public got wind of what they were doing, all progress would be stopped. Of course, the matter was thoroughly debated as no other matter had ever been prior to that time during the ratificatio process.
This suggests that there are select times when full transparency is counterproductive. What are your thoughts on this?
Scott (RU),
Great question. It'll take some thought to post a good answer. I'll do a blog post on it shortly.
As an initial thought, I'd say any time people might be hanged or drawn and quartered for discussing something, transparency might not be the best strategy.
Post a Comment
<< Home