DeLayism vs. the Constitution

My first reaction to today's news about DeLay permanently stepping down from his leadership post was similar to that scene in GoodFellas where Henry Hill is in the police station and the cops are checking out the evidence confiscated from his mistress's apartment. One cop sticks his finger in the caked white goop on a kitchen scale, brings it to his mouth, tastes it, and smiles wolfishly: it's cocaine. Off-camera, his partner says to Henry, "Buh-bye, dickhead."

But in celebrating DeLay's downfall and the rapidly spreading Abramoff scandal, I have this nagging fear that we're missing the big picture. Abramoff is a compelling story, but he's not really at the core of what's been going on here. The money he controlled and spread around--the massive slush fund that has lubricated Republican politics for the past ten years, and has been especially powerful since they retook the Senate in 2002--was a means to an end.  

The end was permanent one-party rule and, I'd argue, an attack on the core principles of the Constitution.  
 

The Constitution was written in such a way as to provide a sort of immune system against the dominance of a single individual or faction. In Federalist #51, James Madison wrote that "ambition must be made to counter ambition." His idea, very similar in a sense to that of Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations, was that a system could be built in which competing self-interest would inhere to the common good.

So you had checks and balances: Congress could refuse to confirm presidential appointments, the president could veto legislation, the judiciary could throw out statutes that ran counter to the Constitution, the president could appoint judges but only with the consent of the legislature. At best, this would lead to a "tyranny of the best idea"; at worst, competing groups would have to balance amongst themselves with the goods likely being distributed around in a somewhat equitable fashion.  

Every action of the Republican brain trust over the last twelve years at least has been to erode that immune system--to change it from one of competing ambitions to aligned ambitions, used in the pursuit of permanent power. This was behind the K Street Project, the philosophy of the Federalist Society, and what we sometimes call the "Republican Noise Machine." People like David Brock and Marshall Wittman, who ultimately recoiled in horror and crossed partisan lines to tell their stories, are the Paul Reveres of this era.  

Rove, DeLay, Norquist and their colleagues pursued this vision by various means: a big campaign check here, a cushy high-paying job there, a symbolic gesture somewhere else, and a steady stream of policy that rewarded friends and punished enemies .  

The ultimate check, though, rests with the voters, which brings us to today's news that DeLay won't seek to regain his leadership post. The aggressive re-redistricting that DeLay rammed through in Texas and that Republicans are attempting elsewhere was supposed to be the final bulwark, an insurance policy against public opinion turning against them by the creation of a critical mass of safe seats.

It might still work that way. But someone evidently made a determination that holding onto DeLay raised an unacceptable risk of eroding the power base that makes "DeLayism"--this whole system I've described--possible in the first place.  

So while the most odious champion of that system has been knocked down (not even out), and its leading bagman, Abramoff, is headed for the pokey, we have to keep in mind that the assault on Constitutional governance continues. Not until we--by which Democrats, reform Republicans (if any), and/or a third party not dominated by right-wing interests--take and hold at least one, probably two branches of the government, and permanently split the current Republican coalition, will the fight be won.

•  Bullseye.

  I agree 100%.  But at least cracks are appearing in the monolith, and blocks of stone are landing in the hot waters of the indictment pool.  This is a start, and beyond the cracks I see at least the possibility of a restoration of the balance of powers.  Let this sink in.  I'd be reassured to know that the prosecutors are building a broad and air-tight case.  Perhaps this scandal is still in it's early stages.  

  Every action of the Republican brain trust over the last twelve years at least has been to erode that immune system--to change it from one of competing ambitions to aligned ambitions, used in the pursuit of permanent power.

  I would love to have a list of these.  Something like an expandable outline, detailing each action, each participant, each small pawn-forward move in their planned, calculated take-over of America.  Have you such a list?  Some Kossack should put one together.

  O -- one last thing.  The usurpation of power in the United States is just 1/2 of the whole story.  The other half, going back to the early days of the CIA and running like a thread of blood through Iran/Contra, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and now Iraq (and back to Iran) is the black-market trade in weaponry, and in particular fissile materiel.  While the two ends are separate, it seems that much of the current problem stems from these two families of thugs joining for some mutually agreeable rapine.

  by Yellow Canary on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 12:01:23 PM PDT

  •  What Yellow Canary Said (n/t)

    by AaronBa on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 12:07:49 PM PDT

  •  the plan

    Thanks for your kind response. I won't try to whip up the list you envision, but I just think the pieces all fit together too well not to suggest a very conscious strategy for achieving the "lasting Republican majority" that Rove and others have long talked about.

    I agree with you that the prospects for a restoration of Constitutional governance are better than in any time since the '04 election, when I thought a Kerry win might at least give us some institutional traction. In fact, this scenario--a series of criminal investigations leading up to a congressional election--could work even better, in that there's a chance for Democrats to push the story of a system under assault without the noise that inevitably comes with a presidential election dominated by personalities.

    If I were to really belabor the "immune system" analogy, I'd say that the investigations are acting as white blood cells trying to destroy manifestations of the DeLay/Rove/Norquist infection. But the only sure cure is to kill the virus at its source.

    by dajafi on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 12:24:15 PM PDT

    •  virus/bacteria

      investigators=white cells

      white cells fight bacteria

      to belabor the immune system analogy we need antibodies to fight a virus

      by njr on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 12:35:53 PM PDT

•  REcommended

  Great Post

  by D Cupples on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 12:18:55 PM PDT