Politicial theater left and right
Reader Chris White comments sarcastically on yesterday’s thread:
And the other big fault of Democrats in Congress is ”¦ they’re being politicians. Of course, there are no politicians on the right. On the right there are only pure patriots who would never, ever, make speeches or pass legislation they know will be vetoed to make a political point or pander to their base. Did someone mention a bridge in Brooklyn they wanted to sell to me in a previous post? I think I could buy it and make a tidy sum flipping it to anyone who believes that, oh let’s say Trent Lott or Newt Gingrich, would never stoop to political theater.
In this case I happen to agree with Chris White. I’ve referred to Gingrich’s hubris before, in a post (like yesterday’s, the one that prompted Chris White’s observation) about the current crop of Democrats and their antiwar machinations in Congress. Here’s the quote:
….[that’s] the sort of narrow thinking characteristic of political strategists in general: they often can’t see the forest for the trees. It’s the sort of attitude that sunk the supposed mandate that Newt Gingrich and company thought they had back in the mid-90s, a kind of puffed-up hubris-by-election that tends to short-circuit whatever lingering common sense those in politics might retain.
Politicians do not have fragile egos; anyone with that particular affliction either does not enter the political fray, or leaves it early. But that means that politicians are very susceptible to thinking they have a greater mandate and greater power than they actually have.
I was a Democrat in the 90s, when Gingrich and company forced the government shutdown because they lacked the requisite votes to override a Presidential veto. I disliked the tactic then, and what’s more, I dislike it now, even in retrospect, and despite the fact that I’m no longer a member of the Democratic Party.
I don’t expect politicians on either side to ignore their manifold opportunities to take the low road and use whatever tools of power they can grab and manipulate. I’m not that naive. On the other hand, I’d rather have such a fight occur over government spending in general—which was the substance of the Gingrich move—than over defunding the military in the middle of a war that is going well, and that is vital to our present security, whatever may be the controversy over its launching.
White’s saying, when you get right down to it, “I know you are, but what am I?”
The obvious is seldom an argument.
Amusingly enough that incident was one of the first ones where I found what I saw from unedited footage (c-span) to be wholly at odds with what was (and still is) reported.
I recall one of the last press conferences before the shutdown. The republicans were willing to meet and discuss the issues, Kennedy was the speaker for the Democrats and informed them that Clinton would Veto anything they passed that wasn’t drafted wholly by the democrats and there were not enough votes to override such a veto. In the end it was nearly wholly written by the Democrats – which is *not* the way it is supposed to run.
And so pretty much ended the “Contract with America” before it really got started and was how much of that era went about. The Republicans then got the blame for both things Clinton forced to pass against their will *and* not for stoping it. There was no way to *not* get the blame. Pass the one you were elected too and it would be vetoed until you passed the democrats plan (and get blamed for not “co-operating”), pass the Democrats and get blamed for the increase in spending after your “Contract with America”, or – as happened – do both! Add in that people like Gingrich definitely have that whole “hubris” thing going and it was terribly easy to get it to stick.
That is why many of the old timers in Congress refuse to fight the media – they had been raped coming and going for years and find it easier to just play along. Even to this day they get blamed for both ends of it – damned if you pass it, damned if you do not.
Indeed, if Bush told the current dems that he would veto anything they passed unless it was written by the republicans I think the news (and the support of the populace) would be a wholly different matter. I doubt many of us (including most republicans) would welcome such a thing, I sure can not image you blaming it on the Dems. But then, that is largely why the media is acting the way it is – that’s a *really* large amount of power to have forcibly taken away from you.
Bush suffers VERY strongly from the same thing (hubris making false charges easy to stick) – but then we have Blogs and Fox News to keep it somewhat fair for those that are not already believers.
I hope this will be the last election in which the “people’s mandate” is evoked by either party. Nowadays, the people’s mandate really means that the people have given you enough rope to hang yourself and they encourage you to get on with it.