June 29, 2005
Ego in Washington
Peggy Noonan has a great op-ed asking “Why are our politicians so full of themselves?”
A few weeks ago it was the senators who announced the judicial compromise. There is nothing wrong with compromise and nothing wrong with announcements, but the senators who spoke referred to themselves with such flights of vanity and conceit–we’re so brave, so farsighted, so high-minded–that it was embarrassing. They patted themselves on the back so hard they looked like a bevy of big breasted pigeons in a mass wing-flap. Little grey feathers and bits of corn came through my TV screen, and I had to sweep up when they were done.
…
How exactly does it work? How does legitimate self-confidence become wildly inflated self-regard? How does self respect become unblinking conceit? How exactly does one’s character become destabilized in Washington?
The Supreme Court this week and last issued many rulings, and though they were on different issues the decisions themselves had at least one thing in common: They seemed to reflect a lack of basic human modesty on the part of many of the justices. Many are famously very old, and they have been together as a court for a very long time. One wonders if they have lost all understanding of how privileged they are to have lifetime sinecures of power and authority. Do they have any sense anymore of common human wisdom, of the normal human arrangements by which Americans live?
Maybe a lot of them aren’t bothering to think. Maybe Ruth Bader Ginsburg is no longer in the habit of listening to arguments but only of watching William Rehnquist, and if he nods up and down she knows to vote “no,” and if he shakes his head she knows to vote “yes.” That might explain some of the lack of seriousness in the decisions. Local government can bulldoze Grandma’s house because it’s in the way of a future strip mall that will add more to the tax base? The Ten Commandments can appear on public land but not in a courthouse, but Moses, who received the Ten Commandments can appear in the frieze of the House but he’ll be sandblasted off the Supreme Court? Or do I have that the other way around?
A better question: Why do these politicians, whose programs never live up to their promises, and whose private lives are oftentimes worthy of time on Jerry Springer, still feel the nerve to walk around acting like successes? Let’s face it, if you’re a CEO, and you run a company into the ground, you’ll never get hired again. If you’re a sports figure, and you bumble and stumble and lose a big game for your team, you’ll be pilloried from all sides. If you’re a church figure, and you’re caught gambling and whoring it up, you’re called a hypocrite and marginalized by all.
But if you’re a politician, and you’re the author of major legislation that’s full of unintended consequences, and still doesn’t achieve its objective, how can you not only not resign or apologize for your failure, but actually hold your head up high like you’re a success? The McCain-Feingold legislation, which was purported to “get the money out of politics” and to “cut the negative compaigning” led to unbridled money being funneled into 527 organizations which took the nastiness up a few notches. In addition, it has major free-speech implications which could dramatically affect us lowly citizen bloggers.
I’m sorry, but good intentions don’t cut it. I want to see results. Just because you’ve been lucky (and popular) enough to get yourself elected to public office doesn’t absolve you from actual performance.
2 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Yes, and failure the first time doesn’t mean not to try and make it right the second time around. Preach on.
Jim,
Great point. Right now, when we have the ability to renew or strike down certain provisions of the PATRIOT act, that would be good to remember. I understand it got rammed through after 9/11, but now that we have a chance, we need to look at this.
Of course, the Republicans in Congress won’t let that happen, they’ll turn every question about the PATRIOT act’s provisions into a 2006 campaign issue, trying to paint anyone who disagrees as weak on terrorism. Ridiculous…