Was DeLay Too Right?
Last Thursday, June 8th, Congressman Tom DeLay delivered his Farewell Address, saying "goodbye" with "few regrets, and no doubts." His speech followed credible accusations of corruption, and repeated, although seemingly minor, rebukes by the House ethics committee. DeLay's departure did not seem to disturb anyone on either side of the aisle. The Republicans lost a liability, and the Democrats lost an extremely capable opponent.
DeLay, aka "The Hammer," is now notorious for his uncompromising partisanship, "fire-breathing" tactics, and political clout. As the Post's Ruth Marcus comments, "DeLay's farewell address on the House floor last week was nonetheless stunning for its sneering, belligerent partisanship." I agree completely, but this begs the question, was DeLay wrong to not "reminisce about the good old days of political harmony and across-the-aisle camaraderie, and to lament the bitter, divisive partisan rancor that supposedly now weakens our democracy?" And, more generally, was he wrong to assume - and not derivate from - an immobile political position?
These are difficult questions. Political scholars, from Plato to Churchill, all recognized the "middling" power of democracy - it's an inherently compromising system of governance. Indeed, rarely are great democratic achievements occasioned by unbending politicians - or, dare I say, ideologues - who overcome their opponents by unwavering devotion to a cause. But DeLay was surprisingly effective to this end. His political career was marked by significant legislative achievements, including a general broadening of the Republican power base. He stuck to his guns, and, aside from a few scandals, it worked.
Personally, I find something admirable about DeLay (as a devout Republican and Ayn Rand reader, I wonder if Mr. Lee agrees?). I don't care for his politics, but I do believe there is a place on the Hill for folks who "push the envelope," "fight harder," and "scrape and claw for every vote, for every word of every bill that" they believe "would protect human freedom and defend human dignity." Partisan politics should not necessarily constitute the future of our political system, a two party system, where success is regularly measured simply by identifiable action. Principle should still carry some worth.
The Democrats should view DeLay's exit not as victory - they didn't do anything - but as an opportunity to provide their own coherent, uncompromising platform. Clinton is a solid start, but far from the answer. Already, on her quiet road to 2008, she has faded from her own hardline and crept toward the aisle. Regardless of her intentions, I believe Hillary, and the Democrats as whole, need to stop looking across the room for viable solutions. Perhaps the Democrats need their own Hammer.
DeLay, aka "The Hammer," is now notorious for his uncompromising partisanship, "fire-breathing" tactics, and political clout. As the Post's Ruth Marcus comments, "DeLay's farewell address on the House floor last week was nonetheless stunning for its sneering, belligerent partisanship." I agree completely, but this begs the question, was DeLay wrong to not "reminisce about the good old days of political harmony and across-the-aisle camaraderie, and to lament the bitter, divisive partisan rancor that supposedly now weakens our democracy?" And, more generally, was he wrong to assume - and not derivate from - an immobile political position?
These are difficult questions. Political scholars, from Plato to Churchill, all recognized the "middling" power of democracy - it's an inherently compromising system of governance. Indeed, rarely are great democratic achievements occasioned by unbending politicians - or, dare I say, ideologues - who overcome their opponents by unwavering devotion to a cause. But DeLay was surprisingly effective to this end. His political career was marked by significant legislative achievements, including a general broadening of the Republican power base. He stuck to his guns, and, aside from a few scandals, it worked.
Personally, I find something admirable about DeLay (as a devout Republican and Ayn Rand reader, I wonder if Mr. Lee agrees?). I don't care for his politics, but I do believe there is a place on the Hill for folks who "push the envelope," "fight harder," and "scrape and claw for every vote, for every word of every bill that" they believe "would protect human freedom and defend human dignity." Partisan politics should not necessarily constitute the future of our political system, a two party system, where success is regularly measured simply by identifiable action. Principle should still carry some worth.
The Democrats should view DeLay's exit not as victory - they didn't do anything - but as an opportunity to provide their own coherent, uncompromising platform. Clinton is a solid start, but far from the answer. Already, on her quiet road to 2008, she has faded from her own hardline and crept toward the aisle. Regardless of her intentions, I believe Hillary, and the Democrats as whole, need to stop looking across the room for viable solutions. Perhaps the Democrats need their own Hammer.
posted by Dr. Cook at 6:55 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home