Oops!

A great point from Brian Beutler yesterday:

Americans, to some great extent, have internalized this cartoonish idea that politicians ought to be policy-making and policy-enforcing robots, but they almost never seem to bring the hammer down unless a politician errs in some extremely frivolous way. Some senators and congressmen, it's worth pointing out, take legislative action to settle personal vendettas as a matter of routine. Some take bribes, both real and de facto. Others see prostitutes. If I had to pick, I know which "oops" I'd rather catch my elected official in--the only one, it turns out, that's likely to put an entire career in public service at risk.

In some way, the best example of this was the Lincoln Bedroom fundraising scandal of the Clinton years. Appearing to auction off that kind of treat for campaign cash was tawdry as all hell, but Bill Clinton wound up catching more shit for it than his successor did for auctioning off vast swathes of national policy, even though the latter is clearly a more important sin in terms of its impact on people's lives. It all goes back to the fundamental frivolity of the Guardians of our discourse -- the whole political media is dominated by people who can't think about policy without getting queasy.

Comments

the best example of this was the Lincoln Bedroom fundraising scandal of the Clinton years. Appearing to auction off that kind of treat for campaign cash was tawdry as all hell, but Bill Clinton wound up catching more shit for it than his successor did for auctioning off vast swathes of national policy

It wasn't just his successor. In real time, Newt Gingrich was bragging about letting industry lobbyists revise legislation, and Ricky Santorum was setting up the K Street Project to streamline the cash>>>policy production line. I believe it was admiringly called "swagger" and "hardball politics".

Posted by JIm | March 12, 2008 11:34 AM

You could just remove "about policy" from that last sentence, Matt.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | March 12, 2008 11:35 AM

I would have hoped that you've seen enough of The Wire to realize that it's not personal shortcomings on the part of journalists that explains that the larger corruption is business as usual.

Posted by Marshall | March 12, 2008 11:38 AM

Americans seem to have decided that politicians can do pretty much anything they want in defense of policy positions -- lie, stonewall, break the law, whatever -- because that's how you "get things done". We're not willing to forgive personal mistakes/flaws/foibles, because they have nothing to do with advancing any policy.

Seems pretty stupid to me, but that's the conclusion I draw from the evidence I've seen in scandal after scandal.

Posted by Pesto | March 12, 2008 11:47 AM

I've dealt with enough reporters in my time to know that as a class they really are semiliterate, innumerate, half-educated idiots. Of course there are honorable exceptions but the profession as a whole attracts the same kind of bullshitters who go into PR work, only not as smart.

But yes, that's on top of of the corporate structure that promotes corruption. A fine mess indeed.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | March 12, 2008 11:47 AM

There is always plausible deniability when you change legislation to suit business interests (ironically the part of the bribery that is the bad part). Republicans figured out that the way to have their cake and eat it too, was to convince a large number of Americans that selling out the country to business interests was sound policy.

Posted by mpowell | March 12, 2008 11:48 AM

Simple: all politicians are corrupt, but only a few of them regularly fuck hookers. The nonconformists always lose.

Posted by Bill | March 12, 2008 12:06 PM

"the whole political media is dominated by people who can't think about policy without getting queasy."

The whole political media is dominated by communications majors. 'nuff said.

Posted by snobby | March 12, 2008 12:10 PM

I think its the hypocrisy; your average john or drunk driver or gay cruising for sex in a public place didn't get their job by pandering to the most reactionary elements of society during election season with all that "tough on crime" dredge. I don't personally have a problem with prostitution or drug use or cruising for sex in a public restroom (as long as you don't force the issue with anyone) but politicians who say one thing while flaunting the same laws they helped enact get what they deserve. Doubly so since they get off easy with the celebrity treatment while the average bloke gets their life ruined. If Spitzer thought prostitution was A-OK, why didn't he work to change the laws in New York? He was in a better position to do it than most people.

Posted by STC | March 12, 2008 12:18 PM

Bill Clinton wound up catching more shit for it than his successor did for auctioning off vast swathes of national policy, even though the latter is clearly a more important sin in terms of its impact on people's lives

It's worth pointing out that this is only true it terms of the shit thrown by the media and other politicians. Clinton left office more popular with the public than Saint Ronald, while Bush is the least popular president in the history of public opinion polling. These things are not totally discrete, of course -- one can only assume that the constant cries of "Clinton fatigue" hurt Gore with the public at least a little in 2000 -- but they are different.

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | March 12, 2008 1:29 PM

THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!

Posted by idiotic | March 12, 2008 1:29 PM

Matt I get the point but can you lay off that Lincoln Bedroom thing. There never was any real evidence of a Clinton quid pro quo nor has anyone made similar inquiries about either Bush. The whole thing was consistent with the Newt Gingrich MO since his days of trying to take down Speaker Wright, throw everything at the wall and hoping it sticks.

Clinton Rules are a vast and deliberate application of the fallacy that correlation equals causation and this is a classic case in point. Any major politician has political supporters, political allies, and personal friends and it is only to be expected that these circles will overlap in substantial ways. I would be quite surprised if any overnight guest of George Bush did not appear on a list of campaign donors.

The double standard has been ridiculous since day one. Travelgate, Switchboard Gate, Ushergate all were whipped up into mini-scandals on the basis of nothing. Clinton had every right to replace each and every employee working in the White House and if he wanted to put a personal friend and political supporter in charge of the White House Travel Office he would be doing nothing that every President before and after him had done. It has been particularly galling that the same Republican congressmen that went ballistic when Clinton replaced an indiscrete domestic servant (which is what an usher is) now argue with a straight face that Bush can replace US Attorneys for any reason or no reason at all.

I know that for some people 1992 is a long time ago which doesn't mean we should just internalize Gingrichism. A lot of things people 'know' about the Clinton Administration were simple fabrications by his political enemies, nothing was too trivial (ushergate) or too serious (murder and drug running) to throw up against Clinton but by all evidence 99% of it turned out to be bullshit and the rest so trivial as to not be worth mentioning.

Everyone who follows political blogs understands that there really were a handful of foundations that funded right wing think tanks in an organized effort to sell Movement Conservatism and along the way set up or took over established media. We know that representatives of these organizations meet every Wednesday at Grover Norquist's office on L Street, this is such an open secret that it was the cover story in USA today. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-06-01-grover.htm After Bush was elected the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy simply emerged out of the shadows and claimed that they were out for Permanent Majority and a Unitary Executive. Yet Hillary had been relentless mocked for talking publicly about the VRWC even though the evidence was clear to anyone who looked around.

I know in the heat of a campaign it is hard not to internalize some of the elements that emerged out of the application of Clinton Rules but most of it is just about as substantive as Iraqi WMD and largely pushed by the same people. It is simply unfair to accept and promulgate the narrative of pardons or sleepovers for campaign cash to a younger audience that may not know how bullshit most of the mud slinging was.

Posted by Bruce Webb | March 12, 2008 1:50 PM