Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
With Friends Like These
Steven Hayward at Power Line on the annoying habit of politicians in Washington claiming to be “friends” with their ideological opposites:
One of the first things you notice when you move to Washington DC from the rest of America is how the specialized vocabulary of the Beltway dominates everyday conversation. I’d add to this list two of my own. First, the Senate convention of referring to your ideological enemies in the other party as “My good friend.” In a few cases it is authentic, but most of the time it is a lie. (Does anyone believe that anyone—in either party—actually considers Harry Reid to be “friend” material?)
For the record, being polite to your fellow Senators while making floor speeches is required by the Senate rules on debate:
No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.
The practice of using flowery, elevated language while in the act of doing the public’s business has its advantages. When attempting to use the force of the state to do things to other people, there will be controversy. And people, generally, are animals, even the hot house Ivy Leaguers and precious, patrician dilettantes that comprise most of our current political class. Anything that tones down the emotion and keeps everyone focused on factual argument, like forced rhetorical respect for one’s opponents, is a good idea. What happens when you ignore this rule? The beating of Sen. Charles Sumner by Rep. Preston Brooks on the floor of the Senate chamber in 1856 serves as an example. I have to think that even being forced to pretend his fellow Senators were his friends and worthy of respect might have defused this situation to some degree:
The inspiration for this clash came three days earlier when Senator Charles Sumner, a Massachusetts antislavery Republican, addressed the Senate on the explosive issue of whether Kansas should be admitted to the Union as a slave state or a free state. In his “Crime Against Kansas” speech, Sumner identified two Democratic senators as the principal culprits in this crime—Stephen Douglas of Illinois and Andrew Butler of South Carolina. He characterized Douglas to his face as a “noise-some, squat, and nameless animal . . . not a proper model for an American senator.”
Andrew Butler, who was not present, received more elaborate treatment. Mocking the South Carolina senator’s stance as a man of chivalry, the Massachusetts senator charged him with taking “a mistress . . . who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight—I mean,” added Sumner, “the harlot, Slavery.”
Representative Preston Brooks was Butler’s South Carolina kinsman. If he had believed Sumner to be a gentleman, he might have challenged him to a duel. Instead, he chose a light cane of the type used to discipline unruly dogs.
Shortly after the Senate had adjourned for the day, Brooks entered the old chamber, where he found Sumner busily attaching his postal frank to copies of his “Crime Against Kansas” speech. Moving quickly, Brooks slammed his metal-topped cane onto the unsuspecting Sumner’s head. As Brooks struck again and again, Sumner rose and lurched blindly about the chamber, futilely attempting to protect himself. After a very long minute, it ended. Bleeding profusely, Sumner was carried away. Brooks walked calmly out of the chamber without being detained by the stunned onlookers. Overnight, both men became heroes in their respective regions.
More problematic than the civilized rules of debate is the unofficial affection and camaraderie overtly displayed by elected officials of wildly divergent philosophical beliefs. ‘Yes, I believe him to be dishonest, manipulative, naïve and that he’s unalterably ruining this country, but … there’s just something about his smile.’
Recently on CSPAN, Brian Lamb interviewed Senator Tom Coburn and nearly the entire hour became Lamb’s repeated attempt to understand this exasperating Washington insider’s club mentality. Coburn is as close to the ideal for a modern politician as a conservative could hope. But his dissembling, evasive answers to very direct, simple questions indicate the Washington mindset may be too much to overcome for anyone who’s been there for a prolonged period.
This clip is classic Brian Lamb, whereupon being told that liberal Democrat politicians are “great people” and then that they’re also lazy, corrupt, ruinous scoundrels — and not getting a straight answer as to how that can be — he curtly asks Coburn to define what he thinks “great” is. [Editor’s Note: CSPAN’s videos aren’t very cooperative with our site. We recommend using the button in the bottom right of the player to expand to full screen].
.
It’s an illuminating response. Coburn believes liberal democrats have their hearts in the right place, and would vote the right way if they could, but they just don’t know any better because of their lack of experience in the real world. They’re good-hearted, great people, but they are naïve. As Michael Corleone once said to his girlfriend after being called naïve and being told that Senators and Presidents don’t have men killed, “who’s being naïve, Kay?“
It’s unquestionably true that Democrat politicians increasingly come from an isolated, protected world where they don’t have to live with the consequences of their actions. But to think that following their good hearts just accidently leads them into advocating increasingly socialistic economic policies and social justice schemes is absurd.
Here’s another attempt by Lamb to get to the essence of the truth in this matter. After Coburn says that most people in Washington routinely lie to the American public, Lamb asks “why?” After giving a defensive, Star Trek-like “Dammit Jim, I’m a Senator, not a sociologist!” preamble, Coburn lands on the cultural movement away from faith and religion:
The most insightful part of that is not Coburn’s response, but Lamb’s highlighting of the inconsistency between a claimed movement away from religion and nearly every politician in Washington wrapping themselves in the garments of overt religiosity. Speaking of which, one more clip. Here’s Barack Obama at the National Prayer Breakfast, talking about his “love” for his “good friend” and his “great friend” Senator Tom Coburn.
According to Coburn, the main problem with President Obama, in particular regarding his untruths in selling Obamacare, is that he was “poorly advised.” Lord help us. If that’s what the Republican leadership truly believes — that liberal Democrats like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton do what they do because they are merely naïve to the real world and are poorly advised — then they have unilaterally disarmed themselves, tactically and intellectually speaking. And we should expect nothing but a continued string of legislative failure to come.
Circling back to the question of why egocentric politicians in Washington are desperate to be seen as being “friends” with each other, I’m left with a much more obvious explanation: ego. It’s gratifying and self-aggrandizing to claim to be friends with powerful people. The President of the United States, or the Speaker of the House of Representatives, or the celebrity Senator from New York are the ultimate in trophy friends, no matter what destructive scoundrels they may be in real life. Plus cross-ideological friendship sets you apart from the petty, common motivations of lesser people.Congress may be a dysfunctional, gridlocked institution, full of bickering partisans, but I rise above that and have good friends across the aisle (cue choreographed applause from handpicked supporters at televised campaign rally).
Say what you will about Senators getting beaten bloody with a silver-tipped cane on the floor of the Senate … at least it spared the voters from this flood of mawkish sentimentality.
Published in General
Great post!
Coburn either needs to get a cane – or a helmet.
You may have perhaps speared the absolute worst feature of Washington, its torture and abuse of the English language.
When words have no relation to their actual meaning how is discussion possible? How is any fashion of honest debate possible? Losing those two pillars how is even democracy possible?
It is one of the most vile forms of corruption.
‘Twas not always thus. Reagan and Tip O’Neill were actually friends (“after 6 PM”). I think that’s the old, “we’ve had some difficult times, but have always gone for drinks afterwards.” It was O’Neill that Reagan called for as his first visitor in the hospital after being shot. And it was their grudging mutual respect that enabled Reagan to get as much accomplished as he did.
But there is truly a decline in civility in DC compared to recent times past, notwithstanding congressional courtesy rules (read: Harry Reid, et al.). And more’s the pity. Whether there may be covert across-the-aisle friendships is unimportant; the media has made certain that they remain hidden by covering all news as ‘us against them’ – on everything. And even though there may be public cracks in the wall separating the parties over O’s outrageous behavior, it seems that the media is more determined than ever to paper over those cracks. Again, the public discourse in DC is cruder and uglier than it used to be, fed I believe, by a blinkered media.
barbara lydick
From what I’ve read, whatever comity they may have displayed after hours, O’Neill was still fairly abusive towards Reagan in public. In other words, Reagan’s charm offensive was limited in effectiveness. O’Neill was still an ingrate.
Probably one of the more honest moments in Washington was when then Vice-president Dick Cheney told Patrick Leahy to go, well…. it wasn’t very nice. It was on the floor of the Senate (when it wasn’t in session during a group photo) and Leahy was trying to feign friendship. The thing of it was, Leahy had been impugning Cheney’s character, not just disagreeing with him on issues. Cheney would have nothing to do with Leahy as any kind of friend.
This likely lost the last two presidential elections. I remember McCain counseling a worried woman that she had nothing to fear from an Obama presidency. At that point, we lost the election. Follow this with Romney allowing Obama to make ad hominem attacks without response…
I didn’t need any help in this area, but it’s another reason to dislike Leahy immensely.
It’s not a great commentary on our “leadership” when we all know their friendships are a facade. Guess what: I don’t care if Senators are friends. I would greatly prefer it if they were not. They’re not there to make friends. They’re there to do the work they swore an oath to do.
There’s nothing about friendship in the oath. I want them to do the right thing for us, not the right thing to maintain “friendships” in the well of the Senate.
I am not holding my breath on this one. Surprise.
I generally think that the occasional brawl is a good thing. It clears the air. It brings limits to how far policy makers can go before cutting the wounds that don’t heal, or creating permanent unreconcilable divisions among the people.
“…Coburn believes liberal democrats have their hearts in the right place, and would vote the right way if they could, but they just don’t know any better because of their lack of experience in the real world. They’re good-hearted, great people, but they are naïve. …”
There may be some truth to this. Sounds like Coburn is taking the Dennis Prager line “Conservatives think liberals are wrong, liberals think conservatives are evil.”
My big worry is that Democrats and Republicans really do like each other too much. These guys and gals all work together and eat at the same restaurants and take trips together. They can only go after each other so much. You need to be friends with Dems so that you can convince them to give you a few dollars for a bridge or something in your district. If you are like Chris Christie you really do want Obama to show up after a major storm to make you look good.
There is a very limited benefit to fighting hard in DC. It’s better to be friends.
It’s been (does the math) 10 years since I worked in a Congressional Office, but my recollection is that the friendships are real. They really do -generally -keep it on the floor, and that’s mostly for the cameras. Even within the caucus, the grandstanding was much less in conference than on the floor. The primary method of persuasion was Chinese food and an arm around the shoulder. And Starbucks. Lots and lots of Starbucks.
It is true that there is less off-hour hobnobbing now, but I don’t think that’s because they don’t like each other, it’s because there are fewer off hours. The Member was only in the office 1 day a week. The other 4 days of the work week were spent meeting with constituents, interest group representatives, think tanks, party auxiliaries, fundraisers (lots of fundraisers) and so forth. Then he was back in the district for the weekend. Everyone in Congress has this schedule -which really is taxing.
Is it any wonder they identify with each other more than anyone else?
I keep saying, our system selects for psychopathy.
Reagan, responding to the press about a particularly disparaging remark O’Neill had made: “before 6PM it’s all politics.”
This makes a lot of sense to me. If the bulk of their time is spent in the company of the same “others”, regardless of party, then the corresponding budget data makes sense. They’re simply horse-trading dollars we can’t afford,and doing it to get re-elected.
The incentive structure is upside down. I can’t think of anyone I know who’d like to spend so much of their time glad-handing, doing deals to get a federally-sponsored sewer grant allocated to their local district. No one. Zero. Not 1 person.
Which doesn’t say good things about our “representative” democracy. I think it long ago stopped representing anything other than its own self-perpetuation.
Great comments everyone, so many new facets of this issue revealed. I have less certainty about what can be done now than before the discussion started, which is an admirable Ricochet trademark.
New conclusion, the political class simply cares less about the issues than you do. They may agree with your POV 100%, but the real fight (through daunting obstacles) cannot be sustained in a prolonged fashion. Tolerances vary, but nobody keeps the fires stoked for years or decades. And humans (non-sociopaths) crave the warm fuzzy stuff: inclusion, friendship, success (even a lowered standard of such). Given enough time even a very real catastrophe such as the national debt can be subordinated to personal concerns (respect, love, legacy, financial security). When the elite culture is emotional liberalism, that will be the gravitational pull ultimately determining the course for all long-term elected officials.
The Constitutional fail safe against a destructive elite cultural mindset was limited government, not putting these people in a position to so comprehensively dictate the freedoms and fortunes of the citizenry. And we all know how that worked out.