What is the best thing that can be said about the House majority in the 112th Congress after its first full day of business? My vote would be for the fact that they seem to have the seeds of self-destruction sown deep in their DNA. It’s a teeth-clenching joy to behold, frankly. I’m particularly enamored of the fact that, in the days leading up to the session’s opening, they were swarming the swank venues of Washington D.C., being celebrated by lobbyists, plied with drink, etc. – the whole Abramoff/Delay machine back in action once again. Two of their number – Reps. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) and Mike Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) – were so immersed in the never-ending delight of fundraising that they hilariously neglected to make it to the Capitol for the swearing in ceremony, opting instead to raise their right hands to a nearby T.V. screen at the bar/restaurant of choice. Good start, guys.
One wishes that were the full extent of the madness – just the Keystone Cop-like clumsiness – but it goes much deeper than that. The corporations that poured money into this last campaign will be getting just what they paid for: a legislature devoted to ensuring full federal compliance with their legislative and regulatory priorities. They got some love from the 111th Congress, to be sure, particularly in light of what has happened to the economy and the environment over the past two years, but this is a prize of an entirely different order of magnitude. This is a paid-for House, pure and simple.
It is now clear the degree to which corporate money was a factor in the closing days of the 2010 election cycle. Though it ran consistently high, post Citizens United, there was a significant spike at the end. Without question, it is now payback time. They’ve gotten a downpayment in the form of the recent tax compromise legislation. Now the focus will be on disabling the few progressive successes we’ve seen in the last session – aspects of financial reform, such as the Consumer Protection Bureau, parts of the health care legislation, and so on. It is incumbent upon us to press the President, the House minority party, and Democrats in the Senate to hold onto these modest gains.
It is also incumbent upon us to take this lesson to heart – elections have consequences. If we sit them out, someone will still win. And that someone is usually a tremendous tool.
luv u,
jp
Most of the reporting on Afghanistan – the Rolling Stone article included – includes a kind of embedded imperial perspective. There’s an underlying assumption that we should be in Afghanistan, that there is some legitimacy to our enterprise there, and that it’s largely a matter of getting it right. This attitude is a formula for remaining in that country for the rest of any of our lives (particularly with respect to anyone who is sent to fight there). Unfortunately, our foreign policy is driven by domestic politics and the need for leaders to act “tough” and project an image of American exceptionalism. That is what makes generals like McChrystal so attractive to our leaders and the mass media that fawn on them (until they say the wrong thing).