SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Why The Democratic Scandals Don't Matter (yet)

THE PLANK JANUARY 6, 2009

Why The Democratic Scandals Don't Matter (yet)

BY EVE FAIRBANKS

More and more these days, my morning newspaper reads like an ensemble comedy of errors cast entirely with Democrats: Bill Richardson probed! Blago busted! Charlie Rangel investigated! Eliot Spitzer ruined! Kwame Kilpatrick jailed! Bill "Freezer" Jefferson indicted! ... and so on. Ugh. Are the Democrats -- so recently awarded power as the clean alternative to the dirty DeLay generation of Republicans -- developing their own "culture of corruption" problem? Or could they, at least, be effectively painted as corrupt for the GOP's political gain in 2010 or 2012?

Republicans sure think so! The National Republican Congressional Committee is already blasting out Rangel-related mailers, and Michelle Malkin has been writhing around as gleefully as a five-year-old in a ball pit full of Blow-Pops: "[T]he Democrat 'culture of
corruption' boomerang has returned to smack the donkeys right back in
the face," she gushed in a recent column. (Unsatisfied with merely one giddy cliche, she added two more: "Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi can stop clucking now. [T]he
corruption chickens are coming home to roost" and "The Democrats have met the culture of corruption, and it looks like it
ain’t just elephants among the jackasses soiling public office." Not bad for 650 words.)

It's excruciating to watch all these Democrats clomp around in clown shoes. But, at least for now, it won't matter! Briefly, here's why not:

- Most of the Democratic scandals have been on the state or local level. That's not to say the figures involved aren't villains, but people are more likely both to assume state politics is dirtier than national politics (which I think is often true) and to attribute state-level corruption to local dissipation rather than the mores of the national party. It's important to remember that the GOP ethics problem of 2005-2006 involved Washington people like Bob Ney and Jack Abramoff, rather than state politicians like Haley Barbour. How many times have we heard that Blagojevich's crimes were "the Chicago way"? This kind of thinking is good for the Democrats.

- The Democratic scandals are not linked (and, to boot, are mostly so bizarre as to seem sui generis). What a great media narrative Abramoff made: A pious religious man makes a bargain with the devil and links up with a greedy Majority Leader. Soon, twelve Washington powerbrokers have been convicted, including a congressman. But where the common themes between the GOP scandals (inappropriate golf junkets, bilking Indian tribes) made them seem all part and parcel of a single corruption syndrome, the Democrats' scandals are not as clearly linked, so are less likely to seem symptomatic. (Spitzer was obsessed with sporting socks while Blagojevich was abnormally engrossed with his Paul Mitchell hairbrush: could there be a party-wide fetish problem?)

- The Democratic scandals do not involve top party leadership. Not yet. Harry Reid, please, please avoid Las Vegas for a little while.

- People do not yet think the Democratic president sucks. Let's face it: The Abramoff stuff (and then, towards the end, Mark Foley) only made a difference because the bloom was already off the GOP rose anyway, thanks to George W. Bush. 

Now, Democratic scandals certainly could develop the dreaded qualities I describe above. Second (or, for legislators, third or fourth or fifth) terms are dangerous, because Washington pols start to get tired of playing the $150K-remunerated workhorses while watching their peers lard it up at law firms or lobbying shops. But for the moment, if you're a Democrat, I wouldn't give yourself an ulcer over Bill Richardson (who, I must emphasize, might yet be innocent!), or his fellows. Although, memo to the NRCC: You're free to keep wasting your money on Rangel mailers.

--Eve Fairbanks

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 19 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

19 comments

I didn't vote for Obama, but given the seriousness of the times, I want him to be successful.

But, he's not even in office yet and his administration is already looking like Clinton's.  Not just a scandal a week, but a scandal every other day.

Let's hope he can get a grip.  Most of his appointments are promising.  But, I don't get Panetta for CIA.  

- ChanRobt

January 6, 2009 at 10:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It will be a long time before this country sees the kind of corruption of the Bush years.  A corruption that destroyed the credibility of Americans all over the world and brought this country to the brink of financial destruction. And it all started before Bush even took office.  Molly Ivin's books, Shrub and Bushwacked, were totally ignored by most but had attention been paid to what she was saying, maybe we could have averted all the disastrous occurrences of the last 8 years.

- vernbvb

January 7, 2009 at 4:13am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As long as mainstream media continues to treat Democrats and Republicans as though they were not interchangable in the corrupt quagmire that is the military industrial complex, stupid questions like this will still be debated by pundits as though they were medical researchers probing some new virus or something.

And over and over again organizations [like Common Cause and OpenSecrets] tracking these relationships keep insisting IT IS WHAT IS LEGAL TO DO, that is the biggest scandal of all.

But the op-ed mavens are usually employed by media giants that sell advertizing space to the big corporations that are funding Republican and Democratic election campaigns. Around and around this money goes as though it were completely irrelevant to how corruption is endemic to the very nature of these relationships.

george walton

- iambiguous

January 7, 2009 at 4:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's called Crony Capitalism, both parties have plenty of crooks and hucksters (i.e., Bill Richardson). Obama's plan for an economic recovery oversight committee is the perfect opportunity for bipartisanship. He should appoint the best men and women from both parties, and independents, to oversee spending.

Someone like Bill Frenzel, a retired Republican Congressman from Minnesota. Brilliant, honest, a master of fiscal policy, nobody's fool. Time for Obama to move beyond picking the best of the Democratic Party, and start asking the best of the Republican Party, and independents, to serve their country.

Other Republicans: Tim Penny, Lee Hamilton and Vin Weber. And where's Sam Nunn?

I'd also like him to mirror that economic recovery oversight committee with other oversight committees (i.e., one for Defense).

- fougasseu

January 7, 2009 at 8:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

fougassou, Lee Hamilton and Sam Nunn are Democrats.

- nbarry

January 7, 2009 at 9:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Channie, you're right, get a grip.  Those so-called "Clinton scandals" you fondly recall were for the most part bogus, ginned up by an out-of-control Republican Congress appointing one special prosecutor after another with little justification, and movement conservatives who refused to accept Clinton's presidency as legitimate.  In contrast, the sleaze and corruption of the last eight years was nothing less than an integral part of the Republican style of governance.  Little surprise in the case of a party that holds government in such low regard to begin with.

BTW, a scandal "every other day"?  Aside from Bill Richardson, who else?

- WayneJM

January 7, 2009 at 10:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Isn't the big difference here that the Democratic leadership and the so-called liberal press are holding these wayward Dems accountable? There will always be corrupt politicians, the question is what you do about them. Do you enable and abet them, or do you bring them to justice?  I  don't want to refresh my recollection about Abramoff's and DeLay's shenanigans, but my general memory is that the Administration, the Republican leadership and the conservative punditry made the first choice, believing that they could retain a very powerful speaker (and devout man of God) by attacking his critics and shouting "partisan witch-hunt." As a result, they were under a cloud of suspicion for a long time before they were finally brought down. How long did it take Obama, Illinois Dems and Dem Senators to abandon Blago? Less than 24 hours, I think. (Spitzer resigned so fast I'm not sure anyone had the chance to ask him to.) How long did it take Malkin and the rest of the flamethrowers to call for DeLay's resignation? Did they ever do so, or do they still claim today that DeLay was hounded out of office by a bunch of America-haters?

- Geoff G

January 7, 2009 at 11:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Gee, Geoff, how long has it taken Senate Dems to roll over like the two-bit whores they are and move to seat Burris?  Oh, right, they said nasty things about Blago - guess that's enough, right?

Yes, a totally bipartisan failure in DC, but it's now the Dems turn in the barrel.

- butchie b

January 7, 2009 at 12:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Butchie, lacking experience with two-bit whores, I yield to your analysis. Geoff

- Geoff G

January 7, 2009 at 12:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

<i>Gee, Geoff, how long has it taken Senate Dems to roll over like the two-bit whores they are and move to seat Burris?  Oh, right, they said nasty things about Blago - guess that's enough, right?</i>

There's the slight problem that Burris isn't actually corrupt.  And what exactly were Senate Dems supposed to do about Blago?  It's the job of the Illinois lege and the U.S. Attorney to deal with that situation; there really isn't anything for the Senate to do.

- FWright

January 7, 2009 at 1:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Then they should have thought of that BEFORE all the "we're not going to seat the choice" rhetoric of December.  That Burris isn't corrupt is not a problem at all - neither, so far as we know, is Valerie Jarett and others mentioned on the tapes.  The point is that Senate Dems huffed and puffed after the tapes came out, and in less than a month have done a 180.

Yup, that's leadeship we can believe in.  But if you call Harry Reid a two-bit whore, watch out that he doesn't hit you over the head with his bag of quarters.

- butchie b

January 7, 2009 at 2:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Michelle Malkin does not do cliches very well, where should "culture of corruption" boomerangs strike donkeys?

- jemerk

January 7, 2009 at 8:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Right on Butchie, you called in.  Dems don't know how to be leaders.  

- Wandreycer1

January 7, 2009 at 9:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If Democrats are going to waste this opportunity caving at the first sign of a tough fight (which they've done consistently at every opportunity for months), I'm going to take up mountain climbing in Tibet.  It will be more productive than watching more of the same from my PATHETIC "leadership."

You called it Butchie.  Don't step up and talk trash unless you plan on following through, why should anyone respect you if you don't respect yourself?

WHY can't intellectuals be tough guys too? ugh.

- Wandreycer1

January 7, 2009 at 9:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Power ocrrupts.  I would like to see a rule for politicians that is (supposed to be) applied to judges; that you can't vote on something that benefits you.  For example, if a politican takes money from someone who benefits from a particular vote, that politican can't vote to benefit that contributor and this would include the trading of votes for the same purpose.  That should narrow down the infractions to sexual or criminal matters and help with the deficit.

- Nusholtz

January 8, 2009 at 2:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why worry? The public apparently doesn't give a rat's ass about it, having elected the obamessiah and filled Congress with them.  Why stop what works? No price to be paid for corruption? Hell, let's keep on keeping on...

- jwl2672

January 9, 2009 at 3:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No one's gleeful about Democrats and their corruption.  Unlike Defeatocrats, Republicans don't celebrate when a US serviceman dies or we lose a war.  Country first.  As opposed to democrats' motto "left-wing principles first. "  

- jwl2672

January 9, 2009 at 3:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Both parties are corrupt. Why is this so difficult for you partisans to see? It is human nature at work. "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely!" (pardon me if my quote is less than perfect). As the government assumes greater and greater control over our lives, there will be more and more corruption. Many, if not most, politicians would be otherwise unemployable (without retraining) in a society that requires people to be productive and produce something of value. Our government (at all levels) and its many MANY millions of employees and bureaucrats have become the party of parasites. Democrats and Republicans would be indistinguishable to Thomas Jefferson or George Washington.

I am a registered Libertarian and I suspect that, if Libertarians won a majority in government, many of them would become corrupt, too. There might be a short honeymoon period, where programs are eliminated and taxes and spending decrease, but it would take too long to dismantle the government control apparatus.  They would sell out, just like the current holders of "power." Like the Democrats and Republicans, they are mostly driven by envy, pettiness, greed...human frailties. That's why anarchy is probably the only answer that makes us free.

If we cannot be trusted to govern ourselves, how can anyone be given the power to govern someone else?

- dalefogden

January 10, 2009 at 8:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This country is not interested in having scandals right now, not in the still-opening weeks of the new Obama Administration. But the scandals are coming, like Sandburg's fog, "on little cat's feet." They are not Republican inventions or campaign strutting

- Anonymous

February 18, 2009 at 11:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close