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.
Which Politicians Have Integrity?
Following last night’s travesty of a speech, we find ourselves in an lamentably familiar predicament. Our present administration reeks of corruption, lies and brazen lawlessness. But is there any way to make the public care?
It’s an enormously important question, and not just for political strategists. If the public doesn’t care, this is the new normal. If the public doesn’t care, then our Constitution will rapidly dwindle into little more than an interesting historical document. Where corruption isn’t punished, integrity will soon be effectively banished. No political party can maintain high standards of lawfulness if the other is permitted to cheat with reckless abandon.
As so often happens, the real problem here is not just apathy, but ignorance. Most people don’t really understand what is happening, and why they should be upset about it. When politicians are quibbling over matters of jurisdiction and legality, middle-of-road voters are inclined to shrug their shoulders and tune out. They don’t bother to explore the details of why Obama’s move on immigration is so dramatically different from what Bush or Reagan did in the past. Washingtonians pointing figures at one another is pretty much business-as-usual these days, so it’s not obvious why they should pay extra attention in this instance.
Obviously, we’ve all been debating what the GOP should or could do to check the Administration’s lawlessness. It’s a hard problem, because it really is the job of Congress to stymie this kind of executive overreach, and yet, if they do, Republicans will likely intensify their reputation as zealots and obstructionists. I have no special insight into this particular problem. But I do want to suggest that, moving into the next few years (and particularly the next election cycle), the party needs to make a serious and concerted effort to highlight justice and integrity as particular Republican values, and to persuade the public that they mean it.
This is hard, because of course every political candidate makes some noises about “transparency” and “bipartisanship,” and recent experiences have left voters deeply cynical about this sort of pitch. Voters are undoubtedly tired of being lied to and manipulated, but they also know that every fresh-faced candidate will promise not to lie. Hillary Clinton (if indeed she becomes the Democratic nominee) does not have a fresh face, so that’s a mark in our favor. But we still need to consider carefully which candidates might be effective in pressing the corruption charge with force, while making a credible case that they are capable of orchestrating genuine reform.
I think the candidates are enormously important in this regard. Voters instinctively mistrust parties, but they can occasionally be persuaded to trust people. So, who seems trustworthy? What candidates (especially presidential, but I’m interested in lower levels too) have the kind of record that would enable them to credibly claim that they will govern with integrity?
I have a few ideas of my own, but I’d love to hear other people’s first. Of course my general idea is that, even if we can’t “win” the short game on the immigration issue, we might still be able to mitigate the long-term Constitutional damage if we can make the Democrats pay heavily over the longer term.
Published in General
NSEERS required higher scrutiny and common-sense registration requirements for individuals from jihad-friendly countries including Afghanistan, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Libya, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Syria and Yemen, as well as other at-risk countries. The basic components included a more rigorous application process in light of the shoddy visa questionnaires and undetected overstays of the 9/11 hijackers; 30 extra minutes of interviewing at ports of entry; a digital fingerprint check and in-person registration after they arrived in the interior of the country; and verification of departure once they exited.” From the same source.
Obama killed both programs. I know GW made a lot of mistakes, but I don’t think ignoring border security was one.
Federalist 10 discusses “faction” and identifies the best remedy as a republican form of government as opposed to pure democracy.
Federalist 51 proposes the checks and balances between the branches of government, and states
Democrats in Congress have broken the connection between their interests and the constitutional rights of Congress; they have done this in service of an overarching ideology, basically faction. As David Horowitz has been saying for years, Democrats and Republicans are not playing the same game. Not coincidentally, the Left, which has captured the Democratic Party, is seeking to destroy the checks and balances (“gridlock”) and other republican constraints such as the Electoral College. (Not that they are averse to helping out their rent-seeking friends and supporters and the bigger the government, the more opportunity there is for rent-seekers.)
Federalist 10 identified income inequality as a major driver of faction; under Obama the middle class is shrinking, income inequality is growing, and a nomenklatura is emerging. He has two more years to pack the Civil Service with his comrades. The people he has already put in place will be hiring the new workers under any Republican administration. When it comes to judicial nominations, Republicans tend to think that the President should be able to count on most nominees being approved. The Democrats invented borking.
We are nearing a tipping point. Immigration isn’t the short game, it’s the end game: having lost the House for now, Obama is seeking to expand the rolls of government clients by any means necessary, including importing millions of them. It is virtually certain that non-citizen votes have already determined the outcome of elections. He has two years left to finish laying the foundations for the next national election.
I am not an O fan. I consider him a right wing radical. I never accused any of the GOP or GWB of not pretending to care about visa and border security. The fact is there were in all likelihood 8 + million II’s in the country when GWB left office which was 7+ years after 9/11. Now if you think I regard GWB as an incompetent yahoo and an absolutely horrible President you would be correct, but if he was concerned with securing the country it is inconceivable, even with my jaundice view of him, to believe GWB was this incompetent.
Why don’t you come to grips with it. There are so many II’s in the country because the establishments of both parties want them here. I submit this is the clearest and most logical explanation.
If Senate votes were apportioned on the basis of the Senator’s personal integrity, Tom Coburn could have ratified treaties by himself.
Love him, dislike him or hate him but George W. Bush was extremely upfront and honest if you honestly and rationally look at his actions and his words. It is why I voted for him twice. I was never shocked at his big spending ways nor some of his socialist lite policies. He was always very upfront about his viewpoints and governing philosophies. I did not like a lot of what he did but he was constant when he could get congress to go along.
The two areas I really felt betrayed on, TARP, and turning his back on Iraq Christians are areas that he never explicitly nor implied different positions on. I really think ignoring the plight of Iraq Christians in favor of some sort of equality of protection position, was the only position which I could call him a true hypocrite on.
It is sad and a brutal dishonesty to history and the truth that one of the most honest politicians of our ere is portrayed as well like 90% of Washington politicians are (The Paul’s and Rubio come to mind on the conservative side).
,
“(insert politicians name), people died” is really nothing unusually in modern American Politics for a politician with a long career (although it is more true from some than others), yet Bush is somehow painted in a light that makes is look so major and rare.
In the end that is why I still have so such respect for Bush, his integrity while in office (his father is another story).
Integrity is too narrow of a criterion. There are always times when leaders must shade the truth, especially when they’re asked direct questions that would compromise plans. Today’s press is obsessed with catching contradictions or forcing falsehoods.
As I’ve noted in another comment, I think Bill Clinton’s lies about Monica to the grand jury and to the press were about the most decent things he’s ever done. On the other hand, I was repelled by Dubya’s press conference act when he pretended to think to himself about “any mistakes that [he’d] made” in Iraq. The same goes for Obama’s silence about his about-face re: executive orders. He simply pretends that he never said such things or dissembles about Congressional inaction.
I expect some dishonesty in my politicians. What surprises me is constancy of purpose. This is where Clinton and the two Bushes fell down, and where Reagan and Obama excelled. Obama may be lazy, but he has really only tried to do three big things: expanding the reach of government via healthcare, expanding the base of the Democrat party via patronage and amnesty, and ensuring his electoral success.