G.O.P. Corruption? Bring In the Conservatives.
By THOMAS FRANK
Published: August 22, 2006
In the lexicon of American business, ‘cynicism’ means doubt about the benevolence of market forces, and it is a vice of special destructiveness. Those who live or work in Washington, however, know another variant of cynicism, a fruitful one, a munificent one, a cynicism that is, in fact, the health of the conservative state. The object of this form of cynicism is ‘government,’ whose helpful or liberating possibilities are to be derided whenever the opportunity presents.
Remember how President Reagan claimed to find terror in the phrase, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help’? Or how the humorist P. J. O’Rourke won fame by declaring that even the proceedings of a New England town meeting were a form of thievery?
The true scoffer demands sterner stuff, though, and in the cold light of economic science he can see that government is not merely susceptible to corruption; government is corruption, a vile profaning of the market-most-holy in which some groups contrive to swipe the property of other groups via taxation and regulation. Politicians use the threat of legislation to extort bribes from industry, and even federal quality standards – pure food and so on – are tantamount to theft, since by certifying that any product in a given field won’t kill you, they nullify the reputations for quality and goodness that individual companies in the field have built up at great expense over the years.
The ideas I am describing are basic building blocks of the conservative faith. You can find their traces throughout the movement’s literature. You can hear their echoes in chambers of commerce across the land. But what happens when you elevate to high public office people who actually believe these things – who think that ‘the public interest’ is a joke, that ‘reform’ is a canard, and that every regulatory push is either a quest for monopoly by some company or a quest for bribes by some politician? What happens when the machinery of the state falls into the hands of people who laugh at the function for which it was designed?
The obvious answer is an auctioning-off of public policy in a manner we have not seen since the last full-blown antigovernment regime held office, in the 1920s. Agencies and commissions are brazenly turned over to campaign contributors; high-ranking officers of Congress throw grander and gaudier fund-raisers even after being arraigned; well-connected middlemen sell access for unprecedented amounts.
What really worries me, though, is that our response to all this may be to burrow deeper into our own cynicism, ultimately reinforcing the gang that owns the patent on cynicism and thus setting us up for another helping of the same. This may not be apparent now, with the identity of the culprits still vivid and the G.O.P. apparently heading for a midterm spanking. Recall, though, that while the short-term effects of the Watergate scandal were jail sentences for several Republicans and the election of many Democrats to Congress in 1974, its long-term effect was the destruction of public faith in government itself and the wave that swept in Ronald Reagan six years later.
In the absence of a theory of corruption that pins the tail squarely on the elephant, this is certainly what will happen again. Conservatives are infinitely better positioned to capitalize on public disillusionment with the political system, regardless of who does the disillusioning. Indeed, the chorus has already started chanting that the real culprit in the current Beltway scandals is the corrupting influence of government, not conservative operatives or their noble doctrine. The problem with G.O.P. miscreants is simply that they’ve been in D.C. so long they’ve ‘gone native,’ to use a favorite phrase of the right; they are ‘becoming cozy with Beltway mores,’ in The Wall Street Journal’s telling. If you don’t like the corruption, you must do away with government.
Were he not the main figure in all this, Jack Abramoff would undoubtedly be nodding in agreement with those editorials. A self-described ‘free-marketeer’ who spent his days fighting ‘government intervention in the economy’ and leading the catcalls at Tip O’Neill, he would undoubtedly have seen the political gold beneath the scandals. If, in our revulsion at Abramoff’s crimes, we are induced to accept Abramoff’s politics, it will be K Street’s greatest triumph yet.
1
By Joe Craine
Well, Mr. Frank, there is corruption and then there is CORRUPTION.
Consider the “Naboth’s vineyard” represented by Afghanistan and Iraq.
Consider that 24 terrorists were arrested because they were to blow up 10 planes using special liquid explosives, like hydrogen peroxide it turns out. After being held for the max 2 weeks (or whatever it is in the UK), those charged with the serious offense became 8.
We are told that terabytes of PC data was impounded plus much more and that
“The meticulous investigation of all this material will take many months. All the data will be analyzed. There will be thousands of forensic examinations and comparisons. Fingerprints, DNA, electronic data, handwriting comparisons, chemical analysis and indeed the full range of forensic disciplines will be used.”
Mr. Frank, what kind of CORRUPTION prevents the same analysis of the most important crime on US soil, perhaps, in history? How often have you heard of victims throwing away the evidence needed for a conviction of the criminals? But, if you believe the official 911 conspiracy theory, that is exactly what happened in the immediate aftermath of the attack of September 11, 2001.
How about looking at the real CORRUPTION of this administration?
As an aside, I wonder if anyone is doing a psyche-evaluation of President Bush prior to 911? You know, much of the best stuff (funny, but not involved in death or destruction) was recorded in those days.
Do you think the president was acting like someone who had something on his mind? Wasn’t that relief we saw in the Booker classroom?
August 22, 2006 @ 5:19 am | Comment
2
By Joe Craine
Well, Mr. Frank, there is corruption and then there is CORRUPTION.
Consider the “Naboth’s vineyard” represented by Afghanistan and Iraq.
Consider that 24 terrorists were arrested because they were to blow up 10 planes using special liquid explosives, like hydrogen peroxide it turns out. After being held for the max 2 weeks (or whatever it is in the UK), those charged with the serious offense became 8.
We are told that terabytes of PC data was impounded plus much more and that
“The meticulous investigation of all this material will take many months. All the data will be analyzed. There will be thousands of forensic examinations and comparisons. Fingerprints, DNA, electronic data, handwriting comparisons, chemical analysis and indeed the full range of forensic disciplines will be used.”
Mr. Frank, what kind of CORRUPTION prevents the same analysis of the most important crime on US soil, perhaps, in history? How often have you heard of victims throwing away the evidence needed for a conviction of the criminals? But, if you believe the official 911 conspiracy theory, that is exactly what happened in the immediate aftermath of the attack of September 11, 2001.
How about looking at the real CORRUPTION of this administration?
As an aside, I wonder if anyone is doing a psyche-evaluation of President Bush prior to 911? You know, much of the best stuff (funny, but not involved in death or destruction) was recorded in those days.
Do you think the president was acting like someone who had something on his mind? Wasn’t that relief we saw in the Booker classroom?
August 22, 2006 @ 5:21 am | Comment
3
By B Swell
Nothing like a little history to warm the heart. My only tiny criticism is how little he pins on Reagan, who really got the ball rolling downhill toward Gingrich, Bush, etc… (I would throw in Tim McVeigh, but he’s small potatoes compared to what we’ve seen since…)
(…as an aside: why do people insist on conspiracy theories when the bumbling reality is just as bad?)
August 22, 2006 @ 9:32 am | Comment
4
By OtherLisa
Not to mention off-topic conspiracy theories…
August 22, 2006 @ 10:22 am | Comment
5
By Joe Craine
So, they are really bad and corrupt, but, they are not that bad and corrupt?
I think they are that bad and corrupt.
August 22, 2006 @ 3:05 pm | Comment
6
By OtherLisa
Joe, every comment you’ve posted to this blog is about your 9/11 theories – theories which I won’t totally dismiss out of hand but which aren’t relevant to the topic.
I suppose it’s a little more relevant to this post than some of the others you’ve “commented” upon, but overall, you come across like a conspiracy spammer.
It’s like the woman at Salon’s Table Talk who brings in the drug war and the need to legalize marijuana every…single…time she posts, regardless of what the topic is.
August 22, 2006 @ 5:51 pm | Comment
7
By Joe Craine
Dear OtherLisa,
I am sorry you feel the way you do. I look around and I see a nation brought to its knees by the most horrible corruption and illegality I could ever imagine.
I look harder, and I see the source of the power is one event; 911.
I think that our revered (I truly feel that way) “liberal” editorialists at the NYTimes have some pretty serious handcuffs on them. I think it is my duty to encourage them to ignore those handcuffs and explore.
I don’t expect you or anyone else to blindly accept my current beliefs about who the criminals behind 911 are. I would hope that you would share my sincere desire that the real criminals, whoever they are, get caught, tried and hung.
I do think, if you are serious in your anger (please forgive me if I have misinterpretted your feelings) about what is going on, that you would at least demand an impartial examination of the evidence. Every chance you get!
What I have seen confirms the following;
The conspiracy theory advanced by the 911 Commission is incorrect and the analysis performed by FEMA of what happened in NY is just plain wrong. All of the work should be redone.
Do you really think I should sit by and let my favorite editorialists drift by with suagr and spice and everything nice?
Or should I demand, as I have, that they get off their duffs and use their considerable skills to examine what happened that fatefull day?
Your irritation with me is similar to a family standing outside their burned-down house discussing the events that led to their loss. One of them decides to talk about the remodeling project that was interrupted. Do you really think that that person should be encouraged in that direction?
Don’t you think someone should say, “Hey, the house just burned down, please help us figure out how.”
I think 5 years is too long for our guys to have totally ignored the evidence.
I don’t think that a desire to find the criminals behind an attack on American soil by unknown assailments with unknown assistance is the same as demanding drug rights.
Do you?
August 23, 2006 @ 4:59 am | Comment
8
By OtherLisa
No, Joe, I think you should respect what this site is for and discuss your 9/11 theories where appropriate. I’d have a lot more respect for what you’re saying if you ever, just once, posted about something else.
It’s one of those, when the only tool you have is a hammer kind of things.
August 24, 2006 @ 12:37 pm | Comment