The brouhaha over William Jefferson's
freezer burning shenanigans has received a smattering of attention over the last few days, but after reading John Nichol's
piece in
The Nation (via www.commondreams.org), and upon review of the diaries and comments relevant to the matter, I see this story as a little more complex than a cursory review of the matter suggests. We liberals are fond/accused of analyzing issues
ad nauseum based on their relative level of complexity, while others sort through their bumper stickers or wait on Rush to issue an edict. This appears to be just such a case.
By way of aggregating information and opinion available to date, we have heard that
Busby has just called on Jefferson to
resign his seat in Congress, while Pelosi has called on Jefferson to
resign his position on the Ways and Means Committee. Jefferson appears set to resist all calls for resignation from Congress or any committee membership at this time. An overarching (and correct, IMHO) theme is presented in various comments and diaries, calling on Democratic officeholders to eject Jefferson from the caucus, and strip him of his committee appointments.
In response to Hastert's and Boehner's outspoken opposition to the executive branch's authorization of a raid on legislative offices outside the procedures established to handle such matters, Kos interprets the Republican response to be no more than their protecting their own interests, and maintenance of an "above the law" mindset. Kos makes mention of Kagro X's comment that it is odd that the Republican leadership would voice strong opposition now after such a preponderance of signing orders (750 and counting). On the other hand, fas agrees that Hastert is on the right track and that the Democrats should take the strategic opportunity to draw attention to the hypocrisy of fighting against such tactics while Republican offices remain apparently inviolate.
I should note, although it has little bearing on this matter, except to the extent that it's rather ironic, the Republicans were apparently courting Jefferson to switch parties at one time. They sure can smell talent, can't they?
I should also note that one commenter implied that the reason Jefferson is getting nailed to the wall is based on his skin color. No. Jefferson is a corrupt scum-bag who abused his position for personal gain, violating his solemn oath of office, and, in the process, did significant harm to the strategic aims of the Democratic Party and, therefore, on the American people. I don't care what color he is. Either we're principled or we're not. We have to be "different enough" such that the American public can see the obvious difference. That starts by keeping our own house in order. Our standards should not be guided based on the lowest common denominator of the opposing side. That didn't work so well relative to torture ("they cut off people's heads off, so what's your beef about stress positions?") and it doesn't work in this instance either.
Now to John Nichol's piece, and to what I believe is at the heart of the matter.
The question now is whether the system of checks and balances established by the founders in 1787 will be another victim of the train wreck.
By way of context, Nichol states,
Is this just a tempest in Teapot Dome that is our corrupt Capitol? No. Not even the most Constitutionally-abusive administrations dared go so far as to raid congressional offices. It is true that John Adams, in his push to narrowly define the Constitution at the outset of the American experiment, did jail a congressional critic, Vermont Representative Matthew Lyon, for suggesting that the second president had displayed "a continual grasp for power [and] unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation and selfish avarice." But Adams, who would be voted out of office for his disregard Constitution, never dared dispatch armed officers to the Capitol.
So, here we have a real live conundrum.
Democrats, eager to passively allow the Republican Culture of CorruptionTM meme to spread through the public discourse, are equally eager to continue drawing attention to the Bush administration's consistent trampling of Constitutional checks and balances and historical precedent.
The two desires don't fit together nicely, or rather, strategically in the context of Jefferson's circumstances.
In the first instance, if the Democrats aggressively demand that Jefferson resign, they tacitly acknowledge that it was the abuse of the "Speech and Debate" Clause of the Constitution that provided the impetus to move in such an aggressive fashion to force his resignation. As a consequence, one might hear the opinion that, "what's the harm, if the guy was corrupt anyway, and the raid provided justification to force a rat bastard out of office?" This basically follows, and enforces the Orwellian, "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about" line of reasoning.
In the second instance, if the Democrats focus on the breach of precedent and the continuing violation of checks and balances, they might appear "soft" on Jefferson, even if they subsequently pressure him to resign. As a consequence, one might hear the opinion, "the Democrats are more interesting in protecting their own when it comes to corruption...it's just politics; there's no difference between the two parties."
Of course, the Democrats are not entirely helpless victims of this conundrum, as different strategic choices on their part relative to Jefferson would have enabled them to take an aggressive stand now on both fronts, instead of being forced to stand idly by while the Republicans "appear" to be defending Constitutional checks and balances. In the conundrum presented above lies the heart of the problem...the word "passively." Many have complained that a major strategic blunder for the Democrats is that they are not addressing issues as aggressively as they should. Passivity in the general leads to hypocrisy or impotence in the particular. If they had been aggressive about Jefferson from the get go, they'd be talking a whole different game now.
Put another way, they can now be accused of not defending key principles...and of making decisions based predominantly on political calculation. If they are going to stand on the principle that "corruption is bad m'kay" and on the notion that they can lead where the Republicans fail to lead relative to defending the Constitution, they should first set the tone for how Democrats treat their own (and hold them to THE higher standard we demand) relative to the Republicans. Country before Party and all that. I think they've certainly shown more integrity in this regard, but improvements could be made. Again, we don't want the Republicans setting the bar, any more than we want the terrorists or the Nazis to set the bar when it comes to how we function as a complex system.
In conclusion, I think it's a good thing that Jefferson gets tossed on his ass, if what has been reported is true...which it seems reasonable at this point to conclude. We set the standard. Attempting to "save" one seat could yield a negative opportunity cost in the fall. The inverse is true.
In the future, the Democrats need to ensure that it isn't some other Bush-led violation of the public trust upon which some "just" action is precipitated. There is no room for passivity anymore.
But we already knew that.