‘Contempt for Congress’

January 25, 2006

This may be of limited interest outside the poli sci crowd, but the WaPo’s Ruth Marcus touched on one of my favorite topics today: the fact that Bush hates Congress.

[In a nutshell,] this executive branch treats its supposedly equal partner: as an annoying impediment to the real work of government. It provides information to Congress grudgingly, if at all. It handles letters from lawmakers like junk mail, routinely tossing them aside without responding.

It unabashedly evades the need for Senate confirmation of officials by resorting to recess appointments, even for key government posts; see, for example, the recent recess appointments of the top immigration official, the number two person at the Defense Department and half of the Federal Election Commission.

It thinks of congressional oversight as if it were a trip to the dentist, to be undertaken reluctantly and gotten over with as quickly as possible.

Think about some of the news we’ve seen in just the last month or so — Bush issues “signing statements” explaining how he’ll ignore laws passed by Congress; Bush ignores the law on briefing lawmakers on national security; Bush refuses to cooperate with Congress’ investigation into Katrina-related failures; Bush doesn’t like the Senate’s pace, so he names a bunch of hacks and cronies to key posts through recess appointments. These are not the decisions of a president who sees Congress as a co-equal branch of government.

Indeed, these examples come from the past four or five weeks, but the president has always had contempt for Congress. In 2003, the Bush gang literally hid cost estimates of Bush’s Medicare scheme from lawmakers so that just enough conservatives would help get the bill to the president’s desk. A year later, we learned that the administration had shifted funds meant for Afghanistan and diverted them to Iraq — without bothering to let Congress know.

It’s likely that the typical person doesn’t care. Joe Voter might think, “Yeah, well I hate Congress too.” But it does fit in with the whole abuse-of-power theme surrounding this administration. As none other than Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) complained to USA Today in 2002, “This is not a monarchy.”

It isn’t Bush who hates Congress, it is Cheney.

Cheney is the one who yearns for the Imperial Presidency. Which is fascinating, as he was a congressman from Wyoming (79-89). But apparently, his stint as Chief of Staff for Gerald Ford (75-76) permanently turned him against his future comrades. He seems to feel the loss of power and priviledge from the Nixon presidency was just too much.

It is interesting that Cheney got into Congress just one year after the enactment of the 1978 FISA law.

  • Recently venture capitalist Pascal N. Levensohn wrote a business white paper that was written about in the 1/24/06 edition of the San Francisco Examiner. In it, he outlined the warning signs of a bad CEO who should be replaced:

    1) Rejects board input.
    2) Disengages from daily operations
    3) Displays indignation, emotional and combative behavior
    4) Gives the board the “silent treatment” by cutting off information flow
    5) Blames other people for his or her shortcomings

    Now how many of these same traits can be ascribed to our Emperor In Chief? Bonus points if you said “every last one of them.”

    The paper is called “Rites of Passage: Managing CEO Transition In Venture-Backed Technology Companies”.

    Sort of the business version of impeachment proceedings, wouldn’t you say?

  • If it isn’t a monarchy, then why do Republicans in Congress bend over everytime they’re asked to do so and then say “Thank you Sir, may I please have another?”

    We know the answer to that of course: Karl Rove, who supplies the stick and Tom DeLay, who until very recently supplied the carrots.

  • Presidential disdain has been around since John Adams. But none of our right-wing presidents (and certainly not the left-wing) can match the Regal Moron for above-board disdain for Congress — also sheer idiocy, ignorance, lack of curiosity, open lying on a range of issues, stonewalling on many others, inability to take unscripted questions or even pronouce scripted answers, loudly self-proclaimed Christian fundamentalism, hidng from all but his devoted few (Laura, Barbara, Condi, Karen), patriarchal view of all women, not caring what he ruins (Iraq) or allows to be ruined (9/11, Katrina).

    He’s already the worst so-called President by far, and he’s got three more years to go.

  • I think, given the White House’s arguments about Presidential power, that we must now formally consider retiring the title “President”.

    Since most of the “Presidential” powers come from the equivalent title “Commander in Chief”, perhaps we should now refer to this “president” as Commander Bush.

    Chief Bush works just as well, or perhaps as W himself would say, “Jefe Bush”.

    Or, there’s the write-in vote I just received from someone calling himself GW, “His Excellency President for Life George W Bush Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Sea and Conqueror of Iraq.”

  • Dialogue from the film “A Man For All Seasons” is appropriate:
    Roper: “I’d cut down every law in England to get to the devil.”

    More: “And when the last law was down and the devil turned on you, where would you hide, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with man’s laws, and if you cut them down, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? I’d give the devil the benefit of the law for my own safety’s sake.”

  • Ed, Bush doesn’t have patriarchal attitude towards women, he has a child’s attitude.

    Look at the list you named, all strong women who favor him and coddle him and never, ever use the fact that they are more intelligent than he is as a cudgel. His response to other powerful, intelligent women he dislikes is a product of fear, much the way a child recoils at the sight of a deranged parent: the power that protected is now a threat.

    In fact, child psychology helps explain most of Bush’s behavior. He wants to look tough and strong and independent, but is actually totally dependent on a few trusted individuals that he forms a “family” loyalty towards. He gets nervous and defensive when questioned and accepts “parental” advice like gospel. And he can’t ride a bicycle.

  • On the other hand, he doesn’t veto laws that are passed by Congress. That’s not a good thing, but it is one way in which he is oddly respectful of Congress.

  • I like what Curmudgeon said, it makes sense.
    We are a one party government one step away from a dictatorship. If Alito makes it, and the cowardly senate will assure it, dictatorship will be a reality.
    Unfortunately, most Americans are too busy working or watching football to notice. By the time they do, it will be too late.

  • JRG,

    Why veto a law that you have no obligation to follow? That’s not respect, odd or otherwise.

  • Eadie,

    Good point. I was just thinking how he pals around (if rarely) with men, seldom women. But the “child psych” covers that, too (little boys for the most part prefer the company of little boys). Bush really is a messed up guy.

  • “This is not a monarchy.”

    Its a slime-ocratic meritocracy.
    The greater the ethical imparement, the greater the darwinian advantage for a candidate to smear the opposition and rise to the top of the heap.

    Ain’t moral deregulation wonderful?

  • C’mon, even Congress has contempt for Congress. They don’t care about government — good, bad or awful. They’re only there to line their pockets and set up their next payola deal.

    And, it appears more and more that the Supreme Court is heading in the same direction. I’d say with Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and now Alito, we’re almost halfway there.

    • Comments are closed.