Capitol Defense
Aug. 18th, 2008 05:17 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
penfield"Washington is broken. John McCain knows it. We're worse off than we were four years ago."
So goes a recent and popular television advertisement for Senator and expected Republican presidential nominee John McCain.
I think understand what McCain is trying to say and I even applaud him for his willingness to point the finger at his party (who controlled Congress from 2005 to 2007) and his president (re-elected in 2004) -- despite the fact that he somehow manages to avoid pointing the finger at John McCain, who endorsed or supported many of the measures and institutions that have governed the last four years.
(Or is the last four years supposed to represent Barack Obama's Senate term so far? Such a rationale would seem to imply that Obama had a great deal of influence over the last four years' worth of policy, which he did not, and undermines McCain's "he's not ready to lead" message.)
Saying "Washington is broken" makes for a nice talking point. As a statement it is firm and authoritative. As a rallying cry, it speaks to the aggrieved and the ambitious.
But as a premise, it's a straw man. It's glib and it's easy and it's wrong.
Washington is not broken. Actually, our government not only works now the way it always has, it generally works the way it is supposed to. The framers of our constitution quite deliberately made it difficult to get things done. No person, plurality, majority or branch of government should be able to incorporate law through sheer will (Though leaders like President George W. Bush and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi continue to try). That is the purpose of checks-and-balances and the bicameral legislature.
Government by the consent of the governed, especially in a nation as large and diverse as ours, requires compromise. Those who are unwilling to compromise face obstruction or outright failure. Lest you think this a merely academic exercise, consider that the political process is itself a critical element of this equation: partisanship represents the countervailing forces required for innovation and hybridization; it is the "invisible hand" in the marketplace of ideas.
Sure, moneyed influence and special interests are deeply entrenched in the lawmaking process. But this is neither as pernicious nor dangerous as we might be led to believe.
Money, like partisanship -- to bring the previous analogy full-circle -- is simply the tangible expression of opinion. It acts as a unit of public support. Were we to look at the numbers, we would find that the scores on each side of the aisle conveniently balance out. (For each Chamber of Commerce there is an American Bar Association. For every hedge fund there is an AARP. For each McCain PAC event there is an Obama fundraiser.)
Even so, some might argue that the scales remain tipped on behalf of the rich. I'm not prepared to stipulate that, but if it were so, I would argue: good. The United States is a superpower nation, based on a free market philosophy, in a global economy. Increasingly, a state's economy defines that state. Economic righteousness should occasionally carry the day.
As for "special interests," the term gets a bad rap. Because every special interest represents people -- the demos in "democracy" -- and every person on earth is represented by at least two dozen special interest groups. The American Cancer Society is a "special interest" group, but I don't see anyone rushing to evict them from the halls of the Capitol.
Special interests (or their individual units, lobbyists) are critical to the government because they bring knowledge and detail to lawmakers who simply cannot be expected to know everything about everything. And they act as an early warning signal against forthcoming crises and unintended consequences. Yes, occasionally these people draft legislation. Trust me, that is often times preferable to having legislation drafted by underpaid, overeducated Hill staffers who are hurrying to their next alumni mixer.
While quid pro quo is less typical than we all imagine, ethical fuck-ups do occur. It's important to remember two things: first, scandals like Ted Stevens' home renovation are small potatoes compared to historical precedent and foreign alternatives; the 2006 Democratic campaign committee probably made good on its promise of the "cleanest Congress in history." Secondly, we should remember that such infractions are very much illegal. No one is above the law and no one is beneath it, and punishment awaits those who cross the lines.
By virtue of its free society, the American government has more checks, balances, safety nets and watchdogs than any other government on Earth. If you don't believe in Washington, you don't believe in government.
Saying that "Washington is broken" is not only not a solution, it's not even a real problem. Even as a rhetorical device, it's no better than relying on obtuse, abstract notions like "Hope" and "Change" (though at least it's concrete enough to refute).
I'm not suggesting that new leadership isn't necessary. A new perspective, with new energy and the full faith of the American people, will surely improve the standing of our nation. I look forward to the new regime no matter who's behind the desk. But let's put away the suggestion that Washington is a wheel that needs to be reinvented.
I'm reminded of another quotation by a blowhard politician, although this one happens to be true: Prussian/German statesman Otto von Bismarck is thought to have said [see comment below], "Laws are like sausages. It's better not to see them being made." Just because something is ugly doesn't mean it doesn't work.
So goes a recent and popular television advertisement for Senator and expected Republican presidential nominee John McCain.
I think understand what McCain is trying to say and I even applaud him for his willingness to point the finger at his party (who controlled Congress from 2005 to 2007) and his president (re-elected in 2004) -- despite the fact that he somehow manages to avoid pointing the finger at John McCain, who endorsed or supported many of the measures and institutions that have governed the last four years.
(Or is the last four years supposed to represent Barack Obama's Senate term so far? Such a rationale would seem to imply that Obama had a great deal of influence over the last four years' worth of policy, which he did not, and undermines McCain's "he's not ready to lead" message.)
Saying "Washington is broken" makes for a nice talking point. As a statement it is firm and authoritative. As a rallying cry, it speaks to the aggrieved and the ambitious.
But as a premise, it's a straw man. It's glib and it's easy and it's wrong.
Washington is not broken. Actually, our government not only works now the way it always has, it generally works the way it is supposed to. The framers of our constitution quite deliberately made it difficult to get things done. No person, plurality, majority or branch of government should be able to incorporate law through sheer will (Though leaders like President George W. Bush and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi continue to try). That is the purpose of checks-and-balances and the bicameral legislature.
Government by the consent of the governed, especially in a nation as large and diverse as ours, requires compromise. Those who are unwilling to compromise face obstruction or outright failure. Lest you think this a merely academic exercise, consider that the political process is itself a critical element of this equation: partisanship represents the countervailing forces required for innovation and hybridization; it is the "invisible hand" in the marketplace of ideas.
Sure, moneyed influence and special interests are deeply entrenched in the lawmaking process. But this is neither as pernicious nor dangerous as we might be led to believe.
Money, like partisanship -- to bring the previous analogy full-circle -- is simply the tangible expression of opinion. It acts as a unit of public support. Were we to look at the numbers, we would find that the scores on each side of the aisle conveniently balance out. (For each Chamber of Commerce there is an American Bar Association. For every hedge fund there is an AARP. For each McCain PAC event there is an Obama fundraiser.)
Even so, some might argue that the scales remain tipped on behalf of the rich. I'm not prepared to stipulate that, but if it were so, I would argue: good. The United States is a superpower nation, based on a free market philosophy, in a global economy. Increasingly, a state's economy defines that state. Economic righteousness should occasionally carry the day.
As for "special interests," the term gets a bad rap. Because every special interest represents people -- the demos in "democracy" -- and every person on earth is represented by at least two dozen special interest groups. The American Cancer Society is a "special interest" group, but I don't see anyone rushing to evict them from the halls of the Capitol.
Special interests (or their individual units, lobbyists) are critical to the government because they bring knowledge and detail to lawmakers who simply cannot be expected to know everything about everything. And they act as an early warning signal against forthcoming crises and unintended consequences. Yes, occasionally these people draft legislation. Trust me, that is often times preferable to having legislation drafted by underpaid, overeducated Hill staffers who are hurrying to their next alumni mixer.
While quid pro quo is less typical than we all imagine, ethical fuck-ups do occur. It's important to remember two things: first, scandals like Ted Stevens' home renovation are small potatoes compared to historical precedent and foreign alternatives; the 2006 Democratic campaign committee probably made good on its promise of the "cleanest Congress in history." Secondly, we should remember that such infractions are very much illegal. No one is above the law and no one is beneath it, and punishment awaits those who cross the lines.
By virtue of its free society, the American government has more checks, balances, safety nets and watchdogs than any other government on Earth. If you don't believe in Washington, you don't believe in government.
Saying that "Washington is broken" is not only not a solution, it's not even a real problem. Even as a rhetorical device, it's no better than relying on obtuse, abstract notions like "Hope" and "Change" (though at least it's concrete enough to refute).
I'm not suggesting that new leadership isn't necessary. A new perspective, with new energy and the full faith of the American people, will surely improve the standing of our nation. I look forward to the new regime no matter who's behind the desk. But let's put away the suggestion that Washington is a wheel that needs to be reinvented.
I'm reminded of another quotation by a blowhard politician, although this one happens to be true: Prussian/German statesman Otto von Bismarck is thought to have said [see comment below], "Laws are like sausages. It's better not to see them being made." Just because something is ugly doesn't mean it doesn't work.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Woah there
Date: 2008-08-19 02:23 pm (UTC)Re: Woah there
Date: 2008-08-19 04:52 pm (UTC)