Friday, January 20, 2006

[Politics]

The Corruption Pitch in Four Easy Sentences.

A blogger or two has been critical of Harry Reid's performance recently on the Newshour. I have no beef with them:
By coming up with this "reform package" we have managed to make people think this is about reforming arcane congressional rules when it is actually about a bribery and protection racket. And that is exactly what the Republicans wanted us to do. After all, if its only a matter of changing a few rules, they can do that themselves and just move along. Reid starts out with all the right rhetoric and then ends up calling for bipartisanship, for heaven's sake.
But then the question is, how do you communicate--very briefly and very pithily--what the problem is? Drawing on my two part posts on corruption, this is what I'd say:
Since they took control in 1994, Republicans have changed the rules about how things operate in Washington and in the process created the largest corrupt political machine in American history. They changed the way the rules of the Congress operate so that now Democrats are excluded from drafting or altering legislation while Senate and House Republicans collude in conference committee to draft law. Democrats are rarely even given the opportunity to review appropriations legislation before a vote. Finally, Republicans have removed laws that keep lobbyists outside the Capitol; now corporate lobbyists work as an arm of the Republican Party, forced to swear loyalty oaths while they funneling money into campaigns and unregulated "issue" ads to help pass laws that in many cases they themselves have written.
Yeah, there are big words there, and references to processes the average American hasn't a clue about. So what. Say it anyway and demand that the press do a little work and explain "conference committes" and "appropriations." Wouldn't actually hurt if people learned that along the way.

1 comment:

The Manly Ferry said...

Ah, Jeff. Amen. The stuff about process is the key. To those who think the American public doesn't care about process, I'd respond that they simply haven't had it explained to them properly. If nothing else, Americans understand fairness and once you explain how, for instance, the conference committees have worked under the GOP, or how 600-page, non-emergency bills have hit the floor hours (if that) before the vote, I'm pretty confident they'd call that B.S. And if you can demonstrate that the problem has gotten much worse under the GOP, I'm guessing it would stick.

The media does the public a disservice by focusing too narrowly on Abramoff. I've been harping on this for the past couple of days. (one of 'em - LINK) I'm not optimistic that this is being properly communicated, which makes me a bit glum on the prospect for sound reform. But I like where you're taking this.