Wednesday, January 04, 2006

Disillusioned Conservatives & the Virtue of Gridlock

With the Abramoff plea bargain only the latest in a long line of revelations casting a powerful light on the corrupt underbelly of the GOP political machine, many intellectually honest conservatives and right-leaning independents are becoming increasingly disillusioned with the Republican Party – a Party now devoted almost exclusively to allegiance to George Bush and the perpetuation of its own power, and which has almost nothing to do with actual conservatism.

And how can they not be disillusioned? The Republican Party is not only plagued by entrenched Abramoff-like corruption, but also extreme and pervasive cronyism of the worst sort -- from the reconstruction of Iraq to the Kartrina-ravaged Gulf Coast, and, of course, at the very core of the political appointment process in Washington. And when you then throw onto that odorous pile the array of decidedly un-conservative behavior exhibited by the Administration – from exploding discretionary federal spending and a resultant, unprecedented deficit; creeping federal government intervention in virtually every area of our lives; and the full-scale embrace of theories of an Executive who transcends the rule of law – mass conservative disillusionment seems unavoidable, if not long overdue.

The obvious problem for this growing group of dissatisfied center-right voters is that all the Republican corruption in the world doesn’t make them agree any more with the Democratic Party’s positions, leading them to wonder what they ought to do. The always intellectually honest conservative blogger John Cole has a very interesting post on the Abramoff scandal which perfectly illustrates this dynamic:


Many of you are probably wondering why this [post urging that Republicans throw Abramoff "under a bus"] made me laugh. The reason is simple- the time to throw people under the bus is when you first learn they are dirty, which we learned about many of these guys a while ago. This Abramoff scandal isn’t new. We have known that DeLay is a crook for a while, and yet people to this day continue to defend him. Duke Cunningham was on the take for a long while. The time to throw these folks under the bus was last year, or years before- not a couple days before Abramoff makes a plea agreement and all the ugly comes out.

We own these bastards now, and we are gonna take our lumps. Pretending we had nothing to do with them will not work . . . . [A] lot of these people [corrupt Republicans] need to be thrown under the bus, and it would probably do the country good (if the Democrats were not so damned dangerous themselves), if the Republicans were sent into the wilderness to find their soul for a couple of years.

One can empathize with John’s dilemma, which seems increasingly common. We only have two real political parties to choose from, and the fact that Republican Party is awash with scandal, corruption and soul-lessness doesn’t render any less anathema to John the viewpoints of John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats. So what is he to do?

There was, of course, a time when Democrats, particularly Congressional Democrats, were entrenched in beltway power, and -- leave aside for the moment comparative arguments about degree -- corruption took root and grew to the highest levels. That was the era of bloated pork lords like Dan Rostenkowski and Jim Wright, where the true agenda of the Congressional leadership was preserving Democratic hegemony over Congress and growing fat on self-serving pork rather than any ideological goals of liberalism. It’s just human nature that power corrupts in that fashion. With rare exception, people and groups which obtain institutionalized power will want to keep it and get more of it, and will turn to increasingly sordid means for achieving that goal.

What typically saves us -- by quite deliberate design of the Founders -- is that it’s very difficult for any one faction to obtain unrestrained power in our system of Government. But the Bush-loyal Republicans are as close to getting it as any other group has been. They control all three branches of the federal Government and are using that control – with redistricting schemes and the like which make it almost impossible for incumbents to lose – to consolidate and build on that power for a long time to come. As a result, with very rare exception, the other two branches don’t serve as a check on Executive abuses and excesses; Bush hasn’t vetoed a single Congressional bill; and the judiciary is becoming filled more and more every day with deferential Republican appointees.

Not even the most disillusioned conservative is going to be enthusiastic about the prospect of replacing a Republican-dominated government with a Democrat-dominated one, but for such individuals, aren’t things like logjam and diffuse power and muddled, non-ideological compromises and mutual watchdog activities infinitely preferable to allowing the Republicans continued free and unrestrained run of the federal Government?

The amount of harm which any one party can do is much more limited when there is a balance of power rather than the unrestrained Republican hegemony we have now. And gridlock restrains corruption in a way that one-party domination never can.

If a Republican President knows that a Democratic Congress is searching out corruption and scandals of lawlessness in the Executive Branch rather than doing what it can to help conceal and even perpetuate them, doesn’t it stand to reason that an Administration will be more restrained in pushing ethical and legal limits? And conversely, if Congress knows that an Executive Branch controlled by the opposite party is exceedingly willing to use the prosecutorial powers of the Justice Department to investigate and punish lobbyist-driven corruption, aren’t members of Congress going to be more careful?

The true partisan loyalists are always going to want full control of the Government by their party. But for people like John Cole – who care more about political principles than partisan gain for its own sake – isn’t it best to hope and work for the end of unrestrained and inherently corrupting government power resting exclusively in the hands of a single political party in Washington? For disillusioned right-leaning voters like John who are understandably unwilling to simply transfer the same unrestrained power to Democrats, doesn’t logjam and a balance of power seem like an attractive option at this point?

11 comments:

  1. Anonymous8:10 AM

    That's what I really don't understand, why conservatives have sold their souls to George Bush, who is NOT one of them. You make the point a lot that they are waking up. You have more faith in them than I do. We'll see.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous8:30 AM

    Glenn, it's not right of you to compare the Democrats to what's going on now just to show balance. There may have been a Democrat here and there who was a bad apple, but the Republican Party itself is a corrupt enterprise. Why try to equate them?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous10:51 AM

    There are two very popular conservative talk show hosts out here in LA, John & Ken, who decided to target Republican Congressmen to make a statement about dissatisfaction with Republicans. I think conservatives will start to realize more and more that an all-powerful Republican party will be about power and not about conservatism and will be willing to support Democrats just to balance things out.

    Given that they know that the GOP is so corrupt, they can't just keep blindly supporting it, can they?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous12:19 PM

    Glenn, maybe you could explicate for some of us non-lawyers this signing statement by Bush on McCain's anti-torture amendment. It sure doesn't look on the face of it as if he has any intention of complying:

    The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks. Further, in light of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2001 in Alexander v. Sandoval, and noting that the text and structure of Title X do not create a private right of action to enforce Title X, the executive branch shall construe Title X not to create a private right of action.

    Found it at http://mydd.com/.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous2:53 PM

    The American Conservative Union got it, in an article titled Exercise in Arrogance back in the day when the Dems controlled Congress. Excerpt, my emphasis:

    ------------
    In the following months, some 355 House members, past and present, were involved in writing over 20,000 bad checks that totaled over $10.5 million dollars.
    In 1993, the still Democratic-led House then suffered a House Post Office scandal, in which representatives traded stamps and official House postal vouchers for cash. Finally, House Ways and Means committee chairman Dan Rostenkowski essentially looted his own campaign funds for his own personal extravagancy.
    All of the above are political headaches that stem from single-party dominance and hubris. Although some of the above scandals were bi-partisan as to the abusers themselves -- though much more heavily abused by Democrats, the one over-riding factor as far as the voter was concerned, was “who is in charge?”

    ReplyDelete
  6. Brambling - there are two excellent posts on the implications of that signing statement, one by Marty Lederman here, and the other by Hilzoy here.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think that this "signing statement" should be rocketing to the top of everyone's conversation and debate because, it more than anything else makes clear how GW feels about upholding the law and the constitution!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous7:57 PM

    Divided gov't would be great, I pine for the days of old when this was the case. But Diebold won't allow it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Elisa,

    According to the CSM

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0104/p01s03-uspo.html

    Republicans received 64% of the money Abramoff was tossing around. Is this because the Republicans are more corrupt, or is it because Abramoff was tossing more money at those who could actually accomplish what his clients wanted? Probably overwhelmingly the later. If you think thet the Dems are in any way less corrupt or corruptible than the Republicans you must be quite young.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Leo:

    For the past two decades, the Democratic leadership -- and I'm talking about the people who actually are the power brokers, not the elected officials -- have engaged in selling off the Democratic soul piecemeal in order to woo corporate donors.

    Thus, the Democratic Party's official message has got less clear and more constricted with each passing year. The Republicans actively cater to their base, while the Democratic leaders, in their fruitless effort to ape the GOP in order to get corporate donors (an exercise that anyone familiar with DeLay's K Street Project could tell you was futile), have been running away from theirs.

    That's why they hate Howard Dean so damned much. Yes, they finally deigned to hear the cries of their field staff and made him DNC Chair -- but they only did so for the same reasons that a century ago the fire-breathing reformer Teddy Roosevelt was nominated to be McKinley's VP: to "kick him upstairs" and, they hoped, into a place where he was no threat to their power.

    However, just as fate (or an assassin's bullet) made Roosevelt President, Howard Dean is now in a position to destroy the power of the Beltway Democratic self-perpetuating power structure, even as he makes the Democratic Party itself -- and, eventually, America itself -- stronger and healthier than ever.

    First off, he's not only raising more money -- and from smaller donors! -- than his predecessors could, even before the 2002 soft-money ban. He's also making sure that most of it stays where it's raised, instead of going to DC. The official DNC fundraising figures, impressive though they are by Democratic Party standards, don't count the monies Dean has raised for the local and state party organizations.

    What's more, Dean is actively working to make it so that in the future, money will play less of a role than it does now. He's working with the clean-elections group http://www.publiccampaign.org to promote public financing of elections -- a concept that is catching on at the state and local levels.

    Right now, the corporate types -- the ones beloved of Chris Matthews and the rest of the GOP/Media Axis (remind me to bring up Matthews' connections to Abramoff sometime: they may explain his bizarre handling of the Abramoff scandal) -- are still in control. But there will soon be a day when they are not.

    ReplyDelete
  11. LC Scotty:

    Abramoff helped DeLay create the K Street Project, whose ultimate goal was to kill off the Democratic Party by totally starving them of corporate donations (a goal that would have succeeded if not for Howard Dean's energizing the small-money donors over the past three years).

    Also, NONE of Abramoff's own money went to Democrats. NONE.

    Some Democrats got cash from some of Abramoff's clients, but you have to remember: Abramoff's Indian-tribe clients weren't his partners in crime, but his main victims. He hosed them for over $66 million in fees, fees that were outrageous, even by Capitol Hill lobbyist standards -- and then he turned around and lobbied AGAINST them.

    It's very interesting that the ever-compliant GOP/Media Axis counts as "Abramoff-related cash" every single cent donated by Abramoff clients to Democrats -- even when it manifestly isn't part of Abramoff's money-laundering machine -- yet they don't apply that same counting standard to the monies raised by Abramoff for Republicans, especially George W. Bush.

    The media dutifully notes that Bush returned the $6,000 that Abramoff had donated directly to him for his 2004 presidential campaign. But the media don't count the $94,000-plus that Abramoff bundled for Bush in 2004 -- or that Bush has refused to return THAT money. (Oh, and remember David Safavian, the crooked Bush White House staffer and the nation's top procurement official, who got hauled off to the pokey last year? He's one of Abramoff's men. But the media keeps saying that this isn't a Republican -- or a Bush -- scandal. Suuuuuure it's not.)

    ReplyDelete