So politicians, and people generally, of all stripes have been known to behave badly. But perhaps there is something more specifically Republican about the bad conduct (and perhaps crimes) of Bob McDonnell and Chris Christie.
Bob McDonnell -- or, to be more accurate, the McDonnells -- went wrong, it seems, because of a felt necessity to partake in the trappings of great wealth. The infatuation with wealth as a source of self worth has deep roots in American culture. But clearly in America today, it is the Republican Party that seems particularly prone to worshiping at the altar of Mammon.
So perhaps it is not just by chance that the gubernatorial couple that's run afoul of the law over Rolex watches and expensive dresses, fancy vacation homes, and the like, was a Republican gubernatorial couple?
As for Chris Christie, we are of course still learning about the apparently petty and corrupt strong-arm tactics involved in the developing scandals in New Jersey-- the lane closings at Fort Lee, and the Hurricane Sandy funds being funneled in some directions and not others, etc.
But what emerges from what's known so far is a picture of government by bullying. Chris Christie, that is, appears to throw his weight around -- so to speak -- in the manner of bullies everywhere.
And what could be more Republican, in our times, than bullying?
The Republicans-- the party of George W. Bush and his 2002 bullying of Congress to get an authorization for the use of force; the party of congressional extortion over the debt ceiling; the party of across-the-board power-plays to obstruct; the party of a Fox interviewer who disrespectfully interrupts the President dozens of times in a matter of minutes; the party that's intimidated the press into being balanced between the truth and the lie; the party for which threat and attack are the two main modes of political interaction.
So I think the answer is yes, these two scandal-laden governors are not just politicians who behaved badly, but politicians who have behaved badly in specifically Republican ways.
To him I replied:
"More than natural protective society." "Weakness." What rubbish?
It's Liberalism doing what every actor should do: work to make America the best society it can be. Is it not clear that the ideal America is a society and nation that creates certain degrees of community feeling, and a certain commitment to the well-being of all, and not some hostile rejection of things being done to help the LOSERS. It is not just the Ayn Rand part of the right that seems to place no value on a sense of community in our approach to national problems.
Lacking, too, is a respect for those things that can't be accomplished separately - and also for purposes that go beyond selfishness - but can be achieved only through the system we created to enable us to act together: i.e, the government.
The problem isn't any liberal "weakness": The liberals at their best at least are working creatively to create a society that serves the good as best it can, with wise trade-offs one hopes, and with an inevitable mixture of success and failure.
But we sure are a whole lot better a society than we would have been without Social Security, and Medicare and Medicate, and environmental regulation, and the civil rights legislation of the 1960s.
All of those are expressions of the liberal spirit, and the net result of them is that this country is a far better place in a great many ways because these were accomplished.
It is very good for America and for all of us that this spirit had so much sway in the shaping of America's destiny that it did in the most critical years of 1933 up until maybe 1981.
I see the problem as being more on the right, as with every other issue we face in America today that I can think of.
Five years into his presidency, we can say that in many respects Barack Obama has been a good president. He has addressed genuine national problems. The solutions he has proposed have been constructive. And his communications to the American people have mostly been sensible and honest.
But President Obama has failed in one important area (and it is not in the highly embarrassing, but essentially temporary, botch of the roll-out of the Obamacare website). Where Obama has failed is in not fighting harder against an opposition party whose obstructiveness - and destructiveness - have been extraordinary by the standards of the American political tradition.
It's easy to demonstrate Obama's failure. He wanted the politics of his era to be, "The Republicans and I together can get good things done." The Republicans have striven for a politics of, "We're going to keep you from accomplishing anything." Which side would you say has prevailed?
Some say that no one can force cooperation from politicians. I say, "Nonsense." Only the president has the bully pulpit, and great presidents have used it to dominate the politics of their times. President Obama has been in a position, all along, to compel the Republicans to clean up their act or be driven into oblivion.
All it takes is focusing the public's attention on the ugly things the Republicans have been up to. Take the one time President Obama took a strong position and stood his ground -- the crisis in late September and early October over the government shutdown and the GOP threat to push the nation into default. The Republicans sunk so low in public esteem during that destructive display that they were compelled to give in.
I want to speak to the conservatives in this area.
I know from experience that you are good neighbors, and that you make a local society in many ways is admirable. But I am concerned about what's happened with you in the larger political world.
It's not about your conservative values, which on the whole I think are valuable to America. It's about what's happened over the past generation regarding the things you think to be factually true. I ask you this question: If a lot of what you believe to be true were actually false, would you want to know?
At this point, I imagine many of you angrily dismissing my question. After all, am I not the guy who ran for Congress as a Democrat, and aren't Democrats the enemy and not worth listening to?
Setting aside this demonization of the "other side," I hope you will recognize that I speak to you not as a Democrat but as a person with a lifelong passion for truth.
Earlier this month, an alarm about Virginia's razor-close Attorney General's race sounded in some Democratic circles. Adam Swerver, in an article posted on the MSNBC website, declared that even if the defeat of Republican candidate Mark Obenshain is confirmed in a recount, he might still be able to have himself declared the winner by the Virginia state legislature, which is dominated by Republicans.
Swerver's article quoted University of Kentucky law Professor Joshua Douglas describing the plausibility of such a move. Swerver concluded that "the only thing stopping Republicans from ordering a new election or declaring him (Obershain) the winner would be fear of a political backlash or their own self-restraint."
When reported on the Democratic website Blue Virginia, this article generated many responses. Opinions differed about the chances of Republicans succeeding with such a gambit, but there was little faith that scruples would hold them back from stealing the election. One response: "The va GOP will do ANYTHING to win cheat or steal an election."
I don't know whether state Senator Obenshain can gain the office through such a power-grab. But I bet he won't.
When we got to the playing field at Yale, people were strangely clumped around cars with their radios on, and the doors open. We asked what was going on, and we were told, "The president has been shot in Dallas." It was of course unbelievable.
I had felt especially connected with JFK, having seen him only a few weeks before, when he unexpectedly showed up at the Columbia game. Sitting there in the stadium, surrounded by his Secret Service retinue, even at a distance the beauty of the man was visible, his auburn hair radiating life in the sun. How could someone look so extraordinary even across a whole football field?
And now he'd been shot.
Was he OK, we wanted to know? Would he live? Nobody knew. Only that he'd been rushed to the hospital in Dallas.
We were supposed to start our game, and no one was there to tell us differently. So we played the game. We won, using a trick play I still like to remember. But the whole game happened under a cloud of uncertainty and gloom.
When the game was over, it was known. President Kennedy was dead. The president had been assassinated.
A little item in THE WEEK magazine (11/15/13):
Public investment is at its lowest level since World War II, dropping to just 3.6 percent of U.S. output, compared to the postwar average of 5 percent. The decrease is largely thanks to 'Republican success in stymieing President Barack Obama's push for more spending on infrastructure, science, and education.'What a shame. And what a shame the Obamacare launch has gone so badly, as it provides ammunition for those who work to sell the public the idea that the government is never the solution but always the problem.
Not only is there a problem with the "keep your government hands off my Medicare kinds of ignorance," but most Americans don't know how important a role has been played, in the development of American affluence, by "public investment"-- including the canals and bridges that the Federalists and Whigs sought in the early 19th century, and the railroads in which government played an important role, as well as things like the interstate highway system and the Internet (in which actually Al Gore did play a constructive role).
The whole challenge is to find the right mix between the public and the private in our economy, not to idolize the one and demonize the other.
What the United States accomplished between the bombing of Pearl Harbor and V-J Day is astonishing. But the early months of that war were a string of defeats and set-backs. The Japanese rolled across the Philippines, taking numerous American soldiers prisoner. In North Africa, the inexperienced American troops were no match for Rommel's forces. Those days were dark indeed.
By the end of the 1960s, the United States had landed men on the moon --"one small step for a man, one giant step for mankind"-- and won the admiration of the world. However, a decade before that, I recall, the pictures from Cape Canaveral were anything but inspiring. Missiles would go through a countdown only to topple and explode when ignition time came, or lift off but fail to go into orbit.
America worked its way through those failures, however, and went on to do great things.
Of course, in those times, we did not have a major political party that was not just hoping for failure, but actively working for failure.
Against that, too, we must persevere.
It is the pervasive dishonesty of the whole thrust of today's Republican Party that precludes any of them from being cast as a hero.
These are the guys who embezzle the money from their bank, or who are hired to beat up the farmers who get in the way of the cattle baron.
Toward the close of last year's campaign, at a rally in Roanoke, I heard Bill Clinton speak. I was extremely impressed. Really impressed. Even more than I'd been by his speech to the Democratic convention-- a speech that (with the possible exception of Michele Obama's) was the high-point of the convention.
Bill Clinton is not only likely the most gifted politician of our times, but he is also a great teacher. He spoke for about an hour on that occasion in Roanoke, and he was engaging and clear and persuasive, and he laid out with unusual clarity a whole host of issues-- all done in a way that strengthened the candidate in whose support he had come, Barack Obama.
In the coming days, Clinton will be speaking around Virginia in support of his friend, Terry McAuliffe. Since the candidate himself will be there, unlike in Roanoke, and Clinton will be the endorser and not the surrogate, there will be doubtless less of Clinton than at the event last year. But Bill Clinton will not be short-changed, and I think Terry McAuliffe is too smart to worry about being upstaged when he's got someone like Clinton to rally the troops for him. So those who attend these rallies will almost certainly get to witness a worthwhile and memorable Clinton performance.
Besides which, as I learned at the Virginia Democratic state convention in June, 2012, Terry McAuliffe is himself capable of giving a very powerful, very effective political speech. Indeed, in terms of the stem-winder variety of political oratory, McAuliffe may be the stronger of the two. His speech at the state convention last year was one of the most rousing political speeches I've ever heard, in person or otherwise.
So I encourage y'awl to consider attendance at the following events as worth your while. It's worth doing for the usual political reasons-- to support the Democratic ticket in this campaign home-stretch. But even if there were no election, just hearing Bill Clinton speak, in person, in the context of the political battles of our times, would be reason enough.
Here's what an email I got says is the schedule (I think this list is incomplete, and I hope that those with additional information will provide it, below, in the comments):