An overly pragmatic approach to ethics

January 6, 2006

It’s encouraging, to an extent, to see Republicans scramble to distance themselves from Jack Abramoff. It’s even more heartening to see Tom DeLay’s chances of regaining his leadership post diminish in light of the scandal. But I’d feel a lot better about the GOP’s strategy if it wasn’t framed in such cold, calculating terms.

President Bush and numerous lawmakers hastily jettisoned campaign donations linked to lobbyist Jack Abramoff on Wednesday as Republican Party officials pondered the impact of a spreading scandal on their 2006 election prospects.

“I wish it hadn’t happened because it’s not going to help us keep our majority,” conceded Rep. Ralph Regula, R-Ohio.

That’s the wrong answer. Republicans should wish it hadn’t happened because it undermines the public trust. Or maybe because bribery is wrong. Or maybe because the scandal is reminder of how corrupt Congress has become in recent years. But wishing it hadn’t happened because it might hurt Republicans on Election Day is to come to the right conclusion for the wrong reason. It’s like a criminal who’s sorry about getting caught, not sorry for his misdeeds.

Indeed, National Review said this week that DeLay should not return as House Majority Leader because “it would be a substantial political risk for Republicans to bring DeLay back to the leadership while the Abramoff cloud is hanging over him.” Right sentiment, wrong motivation. DeLay shouldn’t return to his post because he’s corrupt and Republicans shouldn’t want an ethically-challenged leader for their House caucus.

But that’s not what’s driving the right this week. For Republicans are considering their future, ethics and morality seem to be irrelevant.

“Sooner or later, self-interest creeps in,” said Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.). “Here is the threshold question that my colleagues will be asking themselves: How many would today accept a contribution from Mr. DeLay or ask him to come to their district? That becomes the threshold question, the barometer. That is something Tom DeLay understands.”

I know, I’m a silly liberal idealist, but couldn’t these guys at least pretend to show deference to principle?

They’re supposed the holier-than-thou, moral outrage party, right? Where the fuck is their moral outrage? Oh, wait, they don’t have any– they’re just upset that they got caught because it *looks* bad.

Throw the bums out. What’s worse is that the Dems don’t seem to be doing much in response to this either. Maybe the time is finally ripe for a real independent 3rd party.

  • Principle? These criminals? Nice to see that you are branching out to comedy.
    For example, think of these people’s stated principle of “Limited Government”…
    the stated principle of “Protection of Marriage”…

    Now remember the Terry Schiavo affair. This abomination happened both here in Florida, and at the Federal level.

    The punch line is that these people think that their actions are consistant with their “Principles.”

    Pass the kool-aid, I’m beginning to have doubts

  • The really sad and frustrating thing to me is that the American people that back these clowns buy into all of their lame excuses. Apparently, the GOP has done such a good job of tapping into peoples’ hatred for others and sense of belonging to a ‘like’ group that nothing the Repugs do will sway them. It is almost cult-like.

    So as for the ‘time is right for a third party’ sentiment, I think you can forget it. I’d settle for a second party.

  • For what it’s worth, David Brooks, the NY Times’s token conservative with whom I’ve never agreed about anything until now, had an excellent op-ed piece yesterday outlining specific post-Abramoff reforms to correct the culture of corruption, blaming “DeLayism” and calling on Republicans to “show a little moral revulsion.” See:

    http://select.nytimes.com/2006/01/05/opinion/05brooks.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fDavid%20Brooks

    (registration and annual fee unfortunately required).

  • You know what you call somebody is more upset that they were caught instead of being ashamed of their actions? A sociopath. Wait wait are the democrats guilty of this too? Probley. But do the Democrats act as holier then thou as the Republicans? Nope.

  • “I know, I’m a silly liberal idealist, but couldn’t these guys at least pretend to show deference to principle?”

    But then they’d be hypocrites, wouldn’t they?

  • Strange how things work. In the world of politics, if you knowingly take money or gifts from a crooked lobbyists and your participation in such a scheme become common knowledge. All you have do to clear yourself is give away your ill-gotten gains. That makes everything all hunky dory again. The upside being, that if he doesn’t get caught, you get to keep everything. Sounds like a win-win situation to me.

    In the real world, if you knowingly receive illegal gifts or money from, say a burglar. The word gets out, your more than likely going to the slammer. I don’t imagine a willingness on your part to return the gifts will absolve you of your crime.

  • “I wish it hadn’t happened because it’s not going to help us keep our majority.”

    Big mistake, Congressman Regula. Don’t you remember your district is a red island in a blue sea?

  • Further proof, as if proof was necessary, that “Republican” is a synonym for “moron.” To which we can add several modifiers, like “drooling,” “sociopathic,” etc. But being that obviously dumb qualifies for the “m” word.

  • “Sooner or later, self-interest creeps in,” said Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.). “Here is the threshold question that my colleagues will be asking themselves: How many would today accept a contribution from Mr. DeLay or ask him to come to their district? That becomes the threshold question, the barometer. That is something Tom DeLay understands.”

    Given the ‘threshold’ as stated, where would that put a Vice President that attends functions to support the defense fund of Mr. Delay?

  • Impeach the whole lot of them. Where or where is integrity in government?Bush smirkingly plies us with false security, while his Christian hand was in the cookie jar too.

    • Comments are closed.