The New Ethics Reformists

In the scortched footprints left in the sand by the Abramoff scandal, a real reformist agenda has yet to emerge from Democrat leaders, and Republicans/conservative interests are quick to fill that hole... Sort of. All three Republicans vying for the leadership of the Senate have placed reform as their primary talking point, as seen with appropriate irony on The Daily Show last night, considering all three are corrupt slobs [and leading to perhaps the most foul 5 minutes in recent memory on The Daily Show, where they examined the Taint of Washington]; and Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert has announced "sweeping" congressional ethics changes. And, as Atrios points out, the conservative realm of shambloggery can take their criticisms of "Liberal Activism" and shove it- cause it ain't just liberals who are up in arms about the illegal wiretapping The Administration asserts is for the good of all:

WASHINGTON, Jan. 17 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances (PRCB) today called upon Congress to hold open, substantive oversight hearings examining the President's authorization of the National Security Agency (NSA) to violate domestic surveillance requirements outlined in the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

Former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, chairman of PRCB, was joined by fellow conservatives Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR); David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union; Paul Weyrich, chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation and Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, in urging lawmakers to use NSA hearings to establish a solid foundation for restoring much needed constitutional checks and balances to intelligence law.

"When the Patriot Act was passed shortly after 9-11, the federal government was granted expanded access to Americans' private information," said Barr. "However, federal law still clearly states that intelligence agents must have a court order to conduct electronic surveillance of Americans on these shores. Yet the federal government overstepped the protections of the Constitution and the plain language of FISA to eavesdrop on Americans' private communication without any judicial checks and without proof that they are involved in terrorism."

Yes folks, that Grover Norquist, and his libertarian cronies have joined the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights in more-than-just-strong-criticism of the illegal taps.

And, in fact, as soon as the name Grover Norquist comes up, we all know exactly what's going on. Because Norquist is more than just a pioneering libertarian tax reformer- he's very much a conservative plotter. In fact, he is, kind of, the plotter- every Wednesday his office fills with leaders of all factions of conservatives- social conservatives, tax reformists, military-industrial folks, corporatists, politicians, and... of course... administration insiders like Karl Rove. Looking for one of the players in the "vast right wing conspiracy?" Grover's the likable face of it. The, well, Grover of it. Likable, fun, inquisitive, etc, etc.

And so Norquist has joined the fray- in the wake of the wiretapping scandals, he wants ethical reforms. This is appropriate Norquist's libertarian tendencies, of course, and certainly his constitutional obligations [every American should be outraged by this]. But his reforms will only go so far. Because access equals money. And with whom has Norquist profitted the most because of his very-high-level access?

Jack Abramoff. The two of them have been actually pimping out time with Rove and other Administration officials for top dollar.

So when Norquist's groups and the top Republican leadership coalesce around agendas of reform, what exactly is happening? Because none of these guys stand to benefit from the reform that's needed- in fact, they need to be completely cut out.

In the Abramoff case, the distancing from Abramoff is overwhelmingly Republican [for an entertaining and useful breakdown of the money/responsibility spread in the Abramoff scandal, see this Talk of the Town piece in the New Yorker by Hendrick Hertzberg, "Abramoffed"]- and the ethics reforms that are being proposed by Republican leadership include stricter limiting of foreign travel expenses, which have been "abused by some [haha];" and other limits to access. This, of course, would not include Norquist's access- those his position don't make their money by buying off politicians- they do so by giving others avenues to buy off politicians.

So Norquist and the Republican leadership are shrewdly attempting a game they've played since they gained power- coopting any Democratic foothold they can, assuming it as their own [when it clearly is not] and condemning Democrats for attempting that language. This is a very sophisticated game.

Here we have converging themes of reform from the House leadership and from Grover Norquist on two separate, but closely tied, issues of corruption; coupled with vehement criticism of any Democrat who talks about about these issues. Al Gore was smeared by The Administration, completely inappropriately, for his comments the other day. And this trend will continue.

They're very good at this game, and it's very effective. The goal is not reform- the goal is preventing the Democrats from becoming the party of reform. Because as head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Rahm Emanuel knows- the "party of change" wins the game.

"We're the party of change," Emanuel tells me. "We're the party of a new direction -- a break from rampant cronyism and the status quo. Period."

If that message has a familiar ring, it may be because Republicans used essentially the same formula to seize control of the House a decade ago. Indeed, given his hard-charging reputation, Emanuel often elicits comparisons to the man who led the GOP to victory in 1994. "Rahm is the Democrats' Newt Gingrich," says Bruce Reed, who served with Emanuel in the Clinton White House. "He understands how much ideas matter, he always knows his message, he takes no prisoners and he only plays to win."

...
"People aren't happy with Washington!" he shouts, echoing the attitude that Gingrich capitalized on. "Look, we should be the party outside of Washington coming to goddamn kick ass out there!"

When I mention that he sounds like Gingrich in '94, however, Emanuel glowers. He doesn't grab the steak knife sitting next to him, but he looks like he wants to. "I admire Gingrich's energy, his ideas," he allows. "When you're in the opposition, your ability to shape and define is very limited. You have to take advantage of your opponent's mistakes. He got lucky -- we made our mistakes in the Clinton White House, and he was there to take advantage of it. That's exactly what we're trying to do in 2006."

...
"We get into this stupid argument every four years: centrists vs. leftists," he says. "That is not the argument today. It is change vs. status quo. In 1992, Bill Clinton was a change agent -- he won. In 1994, Newt Gingrich was a change agent -- he won. In 1996, Bill Clinton was a change agent to Dole and Gingrich -- he won. In 1998, Democrats represented a change from the Republican drive for impeachment -- they won. In 2000, George Bush was a credible change agent. In 2002, Democrats failed to convey change -- and they lost. I want to be about change and reform to the Republican status quo."

...
Emanuel takes evident pleasure in blasting his opponents. The war, he says, exposed the administration's "incompetence," while the aftermath of Katrina revealed its corruption and cronyism. "Republicans can't govern!" he shouts. "The war, energy prices, the failure with Katrina -- they have all changed the environment so that people are now unhappy with both the policy choices and the direction of the country."

Clearly reforms are necessary. As Emanuel states- the Republicans can't govern. Every step they've taken in the last 5 years has become a dismal failure that's led us into even worse positions than before. And any positive steps we've taken, such as the growth of the economy, are staggering at best, and farcical at worst- buttressed by an exploding deficit and national debt. They can't govern, and therefore they sure as hell can't be trusted to reform- not with the power structures they've built over the last 5 years, and their claims to Real Ultimate Power.

So the Democrats, again, we can't stop saying this loud enough until they hear us, they have to get off their asses and shout it out. And not in a ridiculous, pandering way like Hillary Clinton on MLK day [Yes, I know that Newt used the same phrasing, but guess what- it means very little to have Hillary reduce her language to Newt Gingrich's levels].

Democrats have got to take a defining initiative in the next month or so. Every step along they way, they just pass on, and it is becoming ridiculous, and shameful, to let the Republicans own these issues without combatting them. And that's not to say they don't have their work cut out for them- the media has thusfar remained complacent with the Republicans in minimizing these crises; and people just aren't aware of it. But Dems need to find new avenues.

And they need to find them fast. We're enraged; we're despondant; we're shocked; we need positive progressive leadership. And from where we're sitting- it's hard to see anything hopeful coming up in the ranks. Come on guys.

Do something.

-----
[Update- 18 Jan. 2:38 pm- General Stan]

I was just made aware of this NYT piece about the Senate Democrats ethics reform plan, spearheaded by Minority Leader Harry Reid:

WASHINGTON, Jan. 18 - With a stinging attack on Republican ethics, Congressional Democrats today proposed a lobbying overhaul they said far exceeds new Republican proposals in limiting the influence of monied special interests on Capitol Hill.

"Today we as Democrats are declaring our commitment to change - change to a government as good and as honest as the people that we people that we serve," said Senator Harry Reid of the Nevada, the Democratic leader, who compared Republicans to organized crime figures he battled as a state gaming official.

"We took them on; we ran them out of the state," he said in an elaborate event staged by House and Senate Democrats at the Library of Congress. "Well, here they have infiltrated government."

The high profile Democrats gave to unveiling their ethics plan made clear that the party intends to make its portrayal of Republican corruption a central theme in the coming mid-term elections and showed that Democrats do not intend to easily strike a deal with anxious Republicans on an ethics overhaul.

Republicans mounted a fierce counteroffensive, highlighting the ties Democrats have to lobbyists, pointing out past resistance to ethics changes, circulating Library of Congress regulations that say the facility should not to be used for political events and accusing Mr. Reid of using his Senate office to prepare political documents.

" Does Mr. Reid think that using an official government office for political purposes is ethical?" asked Brian Nick, a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader, said her party's plan is superior to the "vague and insufficient set of so-called reforms" proposed so far by Republicans. "What is important about their list is not what it does do, but what it doesn't," she said.

Strong language begins. This had best become the start of the fight. On every point, the Dems have an implicit advantage here. The ethics voilations couldn't be more clearly tilted toward Republicans, but Dems must not untie these issues from The Administration's corruption and cronyism, which leads to incompetence political theory that fails in practice. They must not untie ethics violations and bad management from the aftermath of Katrina or the indictments and [STILL ONGOING!!] investigations of the Plame Affair. Ethics is one of the core deficiencies in this administration.

And every time a Republican says "Yeah, well, you guys are just as bad as us" Dems need to say- What about the failure of the war in Iraq? What about the failures of the management of Katrina? What about the abandonment of the War on Terror? What about the ridiculous notion that a president can do whatever he wishes without recourse?

The Administration and the culture that brought them to power aren't going to just fall away- Dems need to get on top of these issues.