Our Useless Congress

by hilzoy

From the Washington Post:

"The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence voted along party lines yesterday to reject a Democratic proposal to investigate the Bush administration's domestic surveillance program and instead approved establishing, with White House approval, a seven-member panel to oversee the effort.

Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) told reporters after the closed session that he had asked the committee "to reject confrontation in favor of accommodation" and that the new subcommittee, which he described as "an accommodation with the White House," would "conduct oversight of the terrorist surveillance program." The program, which became public in December, has allowed the National Security Agency to monitor phone calls and e-mails between U.S. residents and suspected terrorists abroad without first obtaining warrants from a secret court that handles such matters.

The panel's vice chairman, Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), took a sharply different view of yesterday's outcome. "The committee is, to put it bluntly, basically under the control of the White House through its chairman," he told reporters. "At the direction of the White House, the Republican majority has voted down my motion to have a careful and fact-based review of the National Security Agency's surveillance eavesdropping activities inside the United States.""

Note to Pat Roberts: the administration rejected "accommodation" when it decided to ignore the law and claim the right to exercise war powers in this country, without either Congressional authorization or legal oversight. To think that it is in your power, at this point, "to reject confrontation in favor of accommodation" is like thinking that you can choose persuasion over force when someone is waving a gun at you. The choice to reject persuasion has already been made; all you get to do is decide how to respond to it. Deciding not even to investigate a program that is pretty plainly illegal is an abdication of Congress' responsibilities. And deciding not to investigate when the President and his Attorney General, in defending that program, assert that they have the right to disregard Congress and break the law isn't "accommodation"; it's craven capitulation to an administration that is out of control.

I agree with Jane Hamsher: this shows that "there is no such thing as a moderate Republican." There may be Republicans who personally lament the fact that the President has done this. There may be Republicans who are moderate in the privacy of their own homes. But there are, as far as I can see, no Republicans who are willing to stick up for moderation when it counts. There's just what Glenn Greenwald calls "the group that struts around self-lovingly preening as some sort of "independent Republicans" only invariably to fall in line, meekly and without exception, with White House commands."

The Post continues:

"Also yesterday, legislation sponsored by Sen. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio), a member of the intelligence committee, drew support from two other key GOP panel members, Sens. Olympia J. Snowe (Maine) and Chuck Hagel (Neb.). It would permit warrantless surveillance of calls between the United States and another country involving "a designated terrorist organization" for 45 days, after which the government can stop the eavesdropping, seek a warrant, or explain to Congress why it wants to continue without a warrant."

This is ridiculous. For one thing, it's a dreadful law. For another, last time I checked, the appropriate response to lawbreakers wasn't to revise the law. Most fundamentally, though, this administration has already claimed the right to break the law. To think that passing another law will address that problem is as stupid as asking a congenital liar to really truly promise that this time he'll keep his word.

As I see it, there is no alternative but to vote the Republicans out of office. And this is true for reasons that have nothing to do with liberalism or conservatism. The Republicans will not act when the President seizes unconstitutional powers, and obliterates our system of checks and balances. A lot of them are corrupt, and those who are not tolerated corruption not just in their midst, but in their leadership. They claim to be in favor of small government, but they are allowing the government unprecedented powers, and have destroyed the fiscal position of the country in ways that will take decades to undo. They have harmed our security immeasurably, by tying the army down in Iraq, squandering an immense amount of international good will, letting North Korea get nuclear weapons, and throwing Iraq and the Middle East into a chaos that can only benefit Iran. And besides all that, as Katrina and any number of other examples show, they are flatly incompetent at running a government.

I would love to be working against a party that stood for genuinely conservative principles, and that would implement them honestly and competently. But the Republicans are not that party. They do not deserve the votes of conservatives or liberals. Those* [UPDATE: Republican members of Congress -- END UPDATE] who do not deserve to be in jail deserve to be retired, so that they can be craven, spineless cowards without harming the rest of us and the system of government we love.

***

Does anyone wonder whether I'd say this about Democrats as well? Every time someone asks whether it's time for Democrats to stop playing fair, I say no. Why? Because I think that as important as a lot of the issues that face us are, our system of government is even more important; and that for this reason not playing by the rules is wrong. You can play by the rules without being wimpy or pusillanimous; indeed, as the current example shows, protecting the rules requires that you be willing to fight hard for what's right. But the rules themselves matter immensely, and I would excoriate anyone who tried to undermine them.

[UPDATE: I did not mean to imply that any member of the Republican party deserves to be retired or in jail; just that Republicans in Congress do.]

Comments

[Francis]

In addition to targeting those holding national office, I'd encourage targeting Republicans holding state offices in South Dakota.

[lilylily]

Hilzoy you have put your finger on what bothered me about Slarti's post. Delay isn't the problem. Bush isn't the problem. The problem is the majority of Republicans involved in public office or campaigns for office are corrupt in the sense of having abandoned the rule of law for a ends-justifies-the-means credo. The fight in American politics isn't about policy; it's about ethics and the Republicans are the party of bad ethics. Actually this is a long time coming: Nixon, Iran-contra, Lee Atwater's tactics etc. The only way to restore the Republican party to decent American principles, let alone actual conservative principles, is to make them suffer badly at the polls.
This why those who rationalize that all Democrats are worse no matter what are so profoundly wrong. A politician who upholds the principles of our government and behaves ethically in the field of politics is better than one who doesn't no matter how liberal their philosophy.
After all what could the Democrats do that is so bad compared to the Republicans? I would really like to know.

[Slartibartfast]

My younger brother and I disagree sharply with my father on this point: if those you elect are behaving badly, sometimes the only way to bring them back in line is to withhold your vote next time around. The GOP (Frist, actually) is doing a census right now (which is, apparently, just a poll) and I'm tempted to tell them to stick it, but I'm not sure that'd do any good. Even my dad told them to stick it, but he may be doing so for different reasons than I. My father is absolutely inflamed that I'm voting for Nelson instead of Harris (if it comes to that).

My father's point is that then we'd have to suffer policy-wise; our point is that we already are. If enough of us decide that it's worth it to endure another term or two of DNC dominance in order to (POSSIBLY) clean house, we'll shy away from voting GOP-only (and I've never been one of those, although I've been pretty hard over in that direction). If not, not.

Me, I'm at the point where I'm beginning to think that the solution to the problem lies in the end of the political party system, but I'm at a loss to see how we're going to get there from here.

[Bernard Yomtov]

Exactly.

Voting Republican is not a vote for conservative principles of any defensible sort. It is a vote for government by Mafia - lawless, corrupt, motivated only by greed and power. And the "moderates" are in some ways the worst of the bunch, because they are good at creating the impression that they will behave honorably.

They won't.

[Ugh]

Great quote from a poster at dailykos:

With Yoo holding the knife, the President has castrated Congress, and instead of screaming out in pain and justice, the Republicans play around in a pool of their own blood.

[hilzoy]

It always amuses me that people think I'm so liberal, etc. I mean, I am, but I can;t recall writing that many posts about what I think of as my liberal issues -- e.g., single-payer health care. (When I've written about health insurance, it has mostly been about Medicare Part D, which is a fiasco by any standard, and Health Savings Accounts, which are just plain bad policy, unless your goal really is to dismantle the system of private health insurance.)

Mostly, I strike myself as writing about (what should be) non-partisan issues like torture, the Constitution, and corruption. And for this, I end up being thought of as way liberal.

We live in peculiar times.

[Jackmormon]

I couldn't quite get my parents to vote Democratic in 2004, but at least they voted Libertarian rather than Republican. Hey, it's like staying away from the polls, but more participatory!

[Slartibartfast]

I never noticed how many degrees of stupidity there were, until recently.

Sheesh.

[dmbeaster]

Time for Charles to write us a post reminding us that the Republicans are the Party of Ideas. Yeah -- ideas that Tony Soprano could appreciate.

[Ugh]

Of course the Republicans are the party of ideas, they are taking care of America's truly pressing business.

For example, this summer the Senate is going to vote to stop the true threat to American civil liberties: the epidemic of flag burning that has swept across the land in the past few weeks. This will be done under a special emergency Senatorial procedure allowing the proposed Constitutional amendment to be voted upon without delay, in June.

Also up for a vote that other rampant civil liberty stomper: gay marriage. Fortunately, the Senate will also vote to bar this practice under the same emergency procedure to amend the constitution, in June.

But those dastardly Dems and their un-American views on equality and free-speech will surely stop the Republican's attempts to save America.

Feh.

[CaseyL]

The system's completely broken, because there's no penalty whatsoever for complete corruption, complete incompetence, complete malignancy in governance.

The ruling junta doesn't even pretend to address actual citizens' concerns - and the actual citizens could care less, too, and that's the part that completely blows my mind. It's like most Americans have decided they really like being used, lied to, sucked dry, and treated like morons.

I could keep on fighting if I thought anyone outside my political junkie circles cared about what was going on. But they don't, and they're a lot happier than I am.

[Blue Neponset]

This Intelligence Committee vote really bothers me. It is absolute proof to me that the only thing that matters to the Republicans in Congress is politics. The few times they bucked the President occured only because the Republican base didn't agree with Dubya (i.e. Harriet Meyers, Private Soc. Sec. Accounts, and the Dubai port deal). It doesn't seem to matter to them what non-Republicans think.

[Kyle Hasselbacher]

I recall seeing some expose about Congresspeople speedinig flagrantly on highways. At the end of the report, the reporter said that one of the legislators remarked that the solution to the problem was to change the speed limits.

What's safety got to do with it?

[Jesurgislac]

Slarti: if those you elect are behaving badly, sometimes the only way to bring them back in line is to withhold your vote next time around.

That works when the elections aren't being rigged to make sure that your vote isn't counted.

[Brian Palmer]

For once, I'm going to have to criticize a post of hilzoy's; statements like "Deciding not even to investigate a program that is pretty plainly illegal is an abdication of Congress' responsibilities." are pretty silly. If it's so plainly illegal, there's no point in investigating it.

Either it isn't so plainly illegal, in which case investigating whether it is or not, and what exactly it is doing, is the right thing to do; or it is, and the Senate should be taking measures to (a) stop the illegal activities and (b) punish the criminals or (c) some combination of the above.

It's self-evident that there's no Republican principled enough (nor scared nor ambitious enough) to think about impeachment, so how could Congress punish or even affect the executive branch? I've thought about this, and I think it's a surprisingly knotty problem (it wouldn't be so knotty with principled legislators, but of course, that's the problem).

[Ugh]

Meanwhile, evidence that the Government has been secretly tapping conversations between terrorism suspects and their lawyers.

[Pooh]

It always amuses me that people think I'm so liberal, etc.

I know just how you feel. I almost feel like I need to carry a clip of "Network" around with me, because "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore" pretty well describes my attitude towards the right these days, and I started out more towards the center then to the orthodox left.

[Bernard Yomtov]

I started out more towards the center then to the orthodox left.

May I join the club? I really consider myself a left-leaning centrist. I'm embarrassed to admit that despite being a Gore supporter (and admirer, brown suits and all) I thought Bush wouldn't be terrible. I assumed he would be a center-right sort, not unlike his father, and that even though he was obviously a mediocrity various advisers and whatnot would prevent disaster.

Boy was I wrong.

[Slartibartfast]

Just in case anyone's interested, here's tacitus' review of Kos' book.

[bob mcmanus]

"Every time someone asks whether it's time for Democrats to stop playing fair"

"I agree with Jane Hamsher: this shows that "there is no such thing as a moderate Republican."

Well, this may be a step away from a principled, fair position. And I approve. Although it may not actually be true, see Slart and others, it is a small sacrifice made for tactical or strategic reasons. Or a larger one, if you value Republican friends. Of course, I approve. And it can be made a principle for a lifetime. Partisanship does not determine my policy. You join or attack a party to manipulate policy, not to be manipulated by the party.

Republicans will almost always have insurgencies to their right, and tarring the party with that brush will encourage and empower moderates. For a centrist, more good results will come from attacking each party for its wingnuts. BUT:

1) This is a particularly bad group currently in the leadership. Very very bad. Although I will profess little sympathy for Olympia Snowe, I am capable of imagining how she might be intimidated or threatened in ways with few precedents in American history. Given a different Republican White House, Snowe would be different Senator. That is important.

2) We will probably have to hit bottom. I have little optimism as to what a bare Democratic majority or Dem President will be able to do. Does anyone think President Clinton will release all the detainees on Inauguration Day, or ask for a doubling of Federal taxes? Besides a general trap of neo-liberalist elite culture, the current Republican leadership is doing its damnedest to limit the choices of its successors.

[Bernard Yomtov]

Although I will profess little sympathy for Olympia Snowe, I am capable of imagining how she might be intimidated or threatened in ways with few precedents in American history.

Please share your imaginings with us, Bob. I confess that I am not so imaginitive. Do you think they threatened her life?

Look, Snowe could undoubtedly leave the Senate tomorrow and lead a safe, secure, comfortable, existence. If she were driven out by the Bushies she would enjoy a measure of respect and probably end up, if she liked, telling war stories to students as a faculty member at some public policy school.

The fact is she let her ambition and her party loyalty and who knows what else outweigh her obligations to her country. It's that simple.

And what of Hagel? That one's even easier. He wants to be President. Can't get there if Bush hates him. So cave. Ambition, Bob, not duress.

[Katherine]

um, I don't think I'm in that "actually I'm a moderate" club. I read the Nation when I was in the 8th grade.

I've gotten more moderate since, but I'm no less painfully earnest. And the country's moved right.

I thought Bush would be plenty bad. I didn't trust someone who proclaimed himself to be a compassionate conservative while serenely overseeing the Texas death penalty & indigent defense system. It's that same immunity to cognitive dissonance that I think remains his worst quality.

I was pretty freaking alienated by the election, too.

Did I expect this bad, though? Not hardly.

I wish the Democrats would show more courage and leadership put forth a positive agenda and 100 other things. I have about as low a collective opinion of Congressional Democrats as I have had in my adult life. But even if they continue exactly as they are, there are two words that justify voting Democratic this November all by themselves: subpoena power.

[hilzoy]

Reading Bob's comments, I should clarify: I think there are moderate Republicans; just not Republicans in Congress whose moderation ever translates itself into action.

And while I'm temperamentally a moderate, if not downright conservative (in the etymological sense, i.e. cautious and wary of drastic change), note that I did not claim to be really a centrist. I just haven't posted much about my liberal views, since there have been so many occasions for horror of a purely non-partisan sort.

I favor universal health insurance, a drastic raise in CAFE standards, greatly increased funding for childcare, serious enforcement of environmental standards, the Kyoto agreement or whatever such framework seems best, serious investment in mass transit, etc. Also, using fiscal and not just monetary policy to spur growth -- after 9/11, I would have tackled the recession with a really serious dose of homeland security spending, which would have made us more secure while providing decent jobs. To pay for it, I would raise taxes, aiming for a more progressive and simpler system.

But do I ever get to blog about this? No. Too much completely appalling torture, threats to the Constitution, etc. I plan to make an effort to get my liberal side more fully out on the table at some point, but not today.

[bob mcmanus]

"Please share your imaginings with us, Bob. I confess that I am not so imaginitive."

They have been wiretapping for four years. There are a lot of people in Congress looking at possible jail time, and a determined Justice Department with unlimited resources can build a case against anybody. The corruption is not a bug, people, it is a feature. Karl Rove has been known to come up with child-molestation accusations out of thin air.

There are many lesser threats. Jim Jeffords had longtime friend's businesses damaged when he changed parties(milk supports). I might have a tough time explaining to a fellow college alumni why the revenge for my vote came down on him.

But all this is nutcase speculation. It is not as if the Bush administration would corrupt the law or hurt people.

[bob mcmanus]

When I say "very very bad people" what do you think I mean? If your neighbour tortured inoocents, said he will continue, and the law means nothing to him, exactly what internal restraints do think are on him?

Would they assassinate Olympia Snowe? If they needed to, and could get away with it, damn straight.

The horrible thing is how easy everything is for them.

[bob mcmanus]

Okay. I can come up with all sorts of crazy stuff. And there is a lot of consensus and group-think in Washington.

But since 9/11, the key feeling in my gut has been that the Washington establishment, press and congress feels intimidated. The look like hostages. Senators simply don't take this stuff from a frat boy and his nerd.
Senators think they should be President, they run the country, not the tourists in the executive branch. I can't believe what I am seeing. The most obvious answer is intimidation, extortion, coercion.

Now there are two forms of intimidation: personal and patriotic. Patriotic is of a form:"Buck us and we will take the country over the cliff."

Cheney et al understand "rule or ruin" to the core. The only alternative to submission must be mass violence, and then you cruise. If you can threaten violence, especially the closer you are to the top, most will give in. And I think that the people Katherine is confused by have simply understand that we are in much more parlous times than they can even tell us.

If Cheney told Snowe:"We have been wiretapping 45 Democratic Senators for four years" does she go to the press? What happens if she does? Does she want to start the civil war? If she doesn't, she has jailtime hanging over her head forever.

Power is easy if you are evil.

[Pooh]

I'm embarrassed to admit that despite being a Gore supporter (and admirer, brown suits and all) I thought Bush wouldn't be terrible. I assumed he would be a center-right sort, not unlike his father, and that even though he was obviously a mediocrity various advisers and whatnot would prevent disaster.

I could have written that Bernard, though I thought Gore ran an awful campaign...

[bob mcmanus]

I kill a lot of threads. I guess I should care what people think of me, and respect other people's space or something.

But I respected Graham and McCain, and that dance with torture was just impossible. I need an explanation.

[Pooh]

Bob, you are who you are and are your own man, that is true.

I'd tend to think there was a more benign answer than you suggest, if malign neglect for real-world (as in 'not political') effects and simple, though pervasive, venality can be called 'benign'.

Through the looking glass that that is considered the lesser evil...

[Katherine]

McCain wants to be president. Graham wants to be president one day. There's your explanation.

Rockefeller is now all apologetic because he may have hurt his colleagues' feelings:

But on Wednesday, the Democratic vice chairman of the committee, Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, issued a conciliatory statement, saying that while he favored a full investigation, a committee decision on Tuesday to appoint a seven-member subcommittee to oversee the N.S.A. eavesdropping was "a step in the right direction."

Mr. Rockefeller said he and Senators Carl Levin of Michigan and Dianne Feinstein of California, both fellow Democrats, would serve on the subcommittee, joining Mr. Roberts and three other Republicans, Senators Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, Mike DeWine of Ohio and Christopher S. Bond of Missouri.

Not Feingold, who I am increasingly thinking is the ONLY one who gets it. (I still like Levin overall though.)

This proposal is not only worse than an investigation; it is worth than the status quo.

Hagel is indignant:

On Tuesday, Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska and another author of the proposal, called that notion "laughable." Mr. Hagel said he and Senators DeWine and Snowe were "three of the most independent Republicans" in the Senate and added, "I have never been accused of buckling to White House pressure"

I'm accusing you right now, Chuck. But this is hardly the first time.

[ThirdGorchBro]

I recently re-read The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt, by Edmund Morris. I wish the Republican Party had a Teddy Roosevelt for our times. In the 1884 Republican primary, TR supported a reformist candidate against James G. Blaine, an old guard Republican who was notoriously corrupt. The convention was pretty raucous (no pre-determined nominees in those days), but Blaine got the nomination in the end. A number of Republican reformers were so disgusted that they openly declared they would vote for the Democratic nominee, Grover Cleveland - who had a pretty decent record as a reformer himself.

TR refused to campaign for Blaine, but he stayed loyal to the Republican Party. He was determined to change the party from within, and he knew if he openly sided with the Democrats in a presidential election his career within the Republicans would be over. As it happened, Cleveland won, and the way was opened for TR and the other reformers to increase their influence within the Republican Party. Eventually, of course, Teddy succeeded in making the party over into his own image (for a time, at least).

Right now, the Republicans are back to where they were 120 years ago. We need a latter-day Teddy Roosevelt to rescue the party from itself. I hope that, rather than abandon the Republican Party, the moderates will find the back-bone and the skill to take on Karl Rove and win. I hope that the Republicans will find a way to be responsive to the needs of people other than corporate executives and radical right-wingers. If it takes defeat at the polls in 2006 and 2008, so be it.

[bob mcmanus]

"McCain wants to be president. Graham wants to be president one day. There's your explanation."

There is cynicism, and then there is cynicism. McCain winking and tolerating POW

(sort of, kind of, not quite, but actually worse than POWs)

abuse and torture would be like Simon Wiesenthal being the commandant of Treblinka. There may be such evil in the story, but I prefer to think it lives in the WH.

Because McCain is our likely next President.

[liberaljaponicus]

If it is the case that McCain sees his presidential aspirations as demanding his silence on what is happening, I see it as the ability of rationalization to act as a solvent to moral reasoning. I can't say what I would do in McCain's place, and I can see how I could even think that I was just going to keep my mouth shut because I needed to get in that position to clean up the mess. I think the same thing happened to Nixon.

[Bernard Yomtov]

I favor universal health insurance, a drastic raise in CAFE standards, greatly increased funding for childcare, serious enforcement of environmental standards, the Kyoto agreement or whatever such framework seems best, serious investment in mass transit, etc. Also, using fiscal and not just monetary policy to spur growth -- after 9/11, I would have tackled the recession with a really serious dose of homeland security spending, which would have made us more secure while providing decent jobs. To pay for it, I would raise taxes, aiming for a more progressive and simpler system.

Oddly, or not, there is not much there I wildly disagree with, subject to the details of the programs. I certainly think, for example, that strong environmental protection in the various areas named is very important, but I find it hard to see why that is a liberal stance, even though it has become that by default.

Similarly, I think the Bush tax policies are both fiscally unwise and socially inequitable. I don't think they qualify as "conservative" in any sense, so I have a hard time considering my opposition a liberal point of view.

As for other matters, I suspect I would tend to differ with more leftist types on the practicality of specific programs aimed at achieving universal health care, for example, which is not to say I find the current employment-based system rational.

[Frank]

Bob- Actually I think McCain scuttled his chances by supporting the Dubai port deal, at least if the Democrats pick someone half-way bright this time.

[Katherine]

Bob: wanting to believe something is not the best reason for believing it. People are good at rationalizing, and politicians are especially good at it: I could vote for an investigation that won't pass no matter how I vote, or against this habeas stripping amendment that will pass no matter how I vote. Or, I could suck up this one and become President, and that's when I'll really have the power to end U.S. torture of detainees.

And McCain also has his own anti-torture amendment. "It's more important to prevent future abuse than investigate past abuse," he can tell himself. And it's called the McCain amendment not because he is the most consistent or longest standing opponent of torture in the Senate--he isn't, Durbin'd been sponsoring essentially the same amendment for a while only to have it stripped out in every conference committee, and there's others besides Durbin, but because he's the most effective. And he's effective because he's John McCain, hawkish Republican veteran and former POW. If he starts listening too much to Human Rights Watch and the Center for Constitutional Rights, he won't be that anymore, and he won't be as effective.

So he could tell himself. He wouldn't be entirely wrong, and he wouldn't be the first politician to think that way. I think John Kerry used very similar reasoning to justify his Iraq war vote to himself--and God knows he has close personal reasons for knowing better, which are only slight less searing and life-altering than McCain's. And McCain's opposition to torture, limited as it has been, has been a hell of a lot more effective than Kerry ever was on Iraq.

As far as Graham, I don't really understand what he's thinking, but he took the initiative for the habeas stripping amendment, and actively supported it with deceptive speeches--it goes a lot beyond just caving. You can make up nefarious theories about the threats that Cheney made that motivated him, but it's sheer speculation and I just don't buy it.

[slop]

I would advise most commentators who are usually habitual to take one quarter of their writing and put it in envelopes to politicians or newspapers.

It only takes a few lines and 50 cents. While I think the net can offer revolutionary organizational capacities to the people it can also lure them away from traditional pressure points.

[Katherine]

Editorial by Pat Roberts.

Bizarre excerpt:

It's the constitutional duty of the executive branch to make the tough decisions necessary to win wars. That's not the case for the legislative branch, which has the luxury of criticizing actions with the benefit of hindsight.

I guess this is the only version of the U.S. Constitution he's ever read.

See what I meant about him being 10x more harmful than Pat Robertson, Slart? I am previously familiar with his work: he's been stonewalling on a rendition investigation for several years, naturally. Canada has had a rendition investigation. As does Italy. As does Germany. As has Sweden. As do Spain, England, and if I'm not mistaken, freaking Malta--although, in those last three countries, all there is is evidence that a CIA plane which may or may not have had a prisoner aboard stopped at their airport. But here in the U.S., which operates those planes, which we know beyond any doubt has sent multiple innocent people to be tortured in them--there has been no inquiry by Congress and there will be no inquiry while Pat Roberts remains the chair of the intelligence committee. To say nothing of the non-investigations of CIA prisons and the sham-investigation turned-non-investigation of Iraq war intelligence.

He was also one of the nine Senators--I forgot who it was who first called them "the Nazgul"--who voted against the McCain amendment.

A vote for any Republican Senate candidate this November is a vote to keep Pat Roberts in charge of that committee.

[DaveC]

But the Republicans are not that party. They do not deserve the votes of conservatives or liberals. Those who do not deserve to be in jail deserve to be retired, so that they can be craven, spineless cowards without harming the rest of us and the system of government we love.

I bookmarked this, in case I get around to commenting again and Gary or somebody else accuses me of generalizing and crossing some boundary of good manners and civility.

Now, advocating that liberals, if they regain political power, should throw all their political opponents in jail is a fairly common theme around in the comment section. It seems to me though, that isn't a very liberal idea at all, in the JS Mill sense of the word.

[liberal japonicus]

DaveC,
this depends on if you take Republicans to mean 'those people who are currently in power' or 'those who support the Republican party'. Hilzoy has been pretty specific about the kind of acts that have been committed, so generalizing this to the latter when it is clear she means the former is a bit unfair. She feels, I think, (as I do) that when you are given the task of oversight and you refuse to perform that job, you are wrong. If a building inspector does this, and the building collapses, the building inspector should be liable. If his colleagues suspected something but did not come forward, they should be retired. That these are Republicans that are holding up or neglecting these sorts of oversight duties is pretty clear to me, but if you feel that some Dems are also ignoring oversight duties, or that oversight has taken place, feel free to make that argument. If you can't, then you may want to rethink your assertion here.

[DaveC]

You have to forgive me because I live in Illinois, and I just assume thar politicians are lying, peddling influence, stealing votes, etc.

Except for Mayor Daley of course.

Probably hilzoy is naive, and influenced by politics in Maryland, where the good people in government would never lie, cheat or steal, And for that matter would not smear a political candidate except in an extreme case like Michael Steele, where any and all tactics are necessary to defeat the "bad guys".

[Anarch]

Now, advocating that liberals, if they regain political power, should throw all their political opponents in jail is a fairly common theme around in the comment section.

Only the criminals.

But -- and this is the real tragedy of the times -- I think I just repeated what you said.

[Paul]

You have to forgive me because I live in Illinois, and I just assume thar politicians are lying, peddling influence, stealing votes, etc.

... and he likes it that way.

[hilzoy]

DaveC: I've updated the post to make it clear that I was referring to Republican members of Congress in the passage you mentioned.

[bob mcmanus]

"referring to Republican members of Congress"

Well, I would certainly go further, tho not as far as some might expect. How important leadership, organization, and ideology are to individual behavior is a question that interests me. As far as I can remember, the average German, Italian, Japanese, or Russian citizen fell well within the bounds of decent human behavior after their respective totalitarian parties dissolved. That, besides the rise of totalitarianism, is one of the more important facts of the 20th century.

So would Tom DeLay be a nice guy if the Republican Party dissolved? Is he a generally bad guy who find another organization with which to express his badness? I don't know, but consider it an open question. Of course individuals are responsible for their behavior, but the evidence is very strong for the intensification and direction that groups and organizations provide.

Ban the party. Just kidding, we don't even ban Nazis and KKK. But attacking and criticizing the party as party, as opposed to focusing on individual bad behavior or the party as repository for various policies and ideologies I think is a justified strategy.

[bob mcmanus]

May I elaborate? Because I think I have been characterized as a "hater" without much understanding of what I hate.

Republicans aren't bad because they are bad people. Few people are really bad.
Republicans aren't bad because they want to cut taxes or cut spending. The positions are arguable, libertarians hold them, and I like libertarians.

But although Bush can create a massive new Medicare benefit, tolerate torture, pile up deficits, and be a general schmuck, Republicans remain Republicans. The allegiance and loyalty is not rational, not strongly based on reasons save in some very abstract sense of what "Republicanism" is. And the emotional abstract irrational loyalty is very susceptible to manipulation, in fact creates an almost overwhelming temptation to abuse and manipulate.

[ral]

I happened to listen to an interview of of John Rettie, the reporter who broke the story of Nikita Khrushchev's speech denouncing Stalin (it was the 50th anniversary).

The (perhaps apocryphal) story is that someone in the audience shouted something like, "if he was so bad, why didn't you rid of him?". Khrushchev responded, angrily, "who said that?" Dead silence in the room. "Now you understand why we didn't do anything."

Food for thought.

[Katherine]

Oh my.