Was the "Republican Revolution" Always a Scam? Or Did It Become One?

« Rearranging the Primaries | Main | Making More Democrats »

12/23/2004

Was the "Republican Revolution" Always a Scam? Or Did It Become One?

I highly recommend reading Andrew Ferguson's account of GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff's nefarious career in the Weekly Standard. Some of this is a clip job, but not all of it, and Ferguson pulls no punches on Abramoff or on his coterie, which includes Ralph Reed and Grover Norquist. I had not realized before that Abramoff was not just this decade's State-of-the-Art Washington Sleazeball (to borrow the title of an unforgettable 1985 profile in the New Republic of Roger Stone by a veryyoung Jacob Weisberg), but in fact was deeply immersed in the culture of movement conservatism and the battles to take control of institutions like the College Republicans that brought Reed, Norquist and Karl Rove together. (Ferguson does not mention Rove.)

The core of the story is this: Abramoff and his partner, former DeLay aide Michael Scanlon, milked Indian tribes for hundreds of millions of dollars in lobbying expenses in support of their gambling interests, most notably being hired by a Louisiana tribe to prevent a rival Texas tribe from opening a casino, and then turning around and successfully pitching their services to the abused Texas tribes. Ferguson notes that Reed, "is far more famous, and far more careful with his reputation. As a pillar among conservative evangelicals and an ardent foe of gambling, Reed refuses to take casino tribes as clients." So, therefore Reed was hired to do the work of closing down the Texas casinos by "riling up our pastors," though paid by Abamoff and Scanlon with funds from the Louisiana tribes. There is much more to the story, some of it shocking even to those incapable of being shocked and some of it hilarious, such as a "think tank on the beach" in Rehoboth, MD, through which millions were funneled.

Ferguson admirably does not treat this case as a matter of a pair of rogues, but as a parable for the Republican power structure. He concludes by quoting Norquist, from 1995:

"What the Republicans need is 50 Jack Abramoffs," Norquist said. "Then this becomes a different town."
It was a bold statement, typical for the time, but even then it raised a question we now know the answer to: Would the Republicans change Washington, or would it be the other way around?

The answer, Ferguson insists, is that the noble ideals of the Republican Revolution were ultimately corrupted by Washington:

Stripped of its peculiar grossness, Abramoff's Indian story really is just another story of business as usual in the world of Washington lobbying... That closed, parasitic culture of convenience--with its revolving doors, front groups, pay-offs, expense-account comfort, and ideological cover stories--is as essential to the way Republican Washington works, ten years after the Revolution, as ever it was to Democratic Washington.

I'm sorry, but that's bullshit. The Republicans did change Washington; they made it fundamentally and profoundly more corrupt. There was plenty of corruption in "Democratic Washington," but even leaving out the "peculiar grossness" of this one, you won't find anything remotely comparable to this in the decades of Democratic control. (The first sentence of Ferguson's paragraph above is actually kind of funny. It makes you want to come up with parallels, like, "Stripped of its peculiar grossness, the Manson Family was just another story of a close-knit group of people.")

Nor is there anything in this story to support the idea that something changed between 1995 and today, that an idealistic dream became corrupted. This kind of corruption was built into the Gingrich/DeLay/Norquist/Rove/Abramoff/Ney syndicate from the very beginning, and it got worse only as its ability to exercise power grew unchecked.

Like the idea that there is a "Social Security crisis," the unchallenged assumption that pre-1994 "Democratic Washington" was a cesspool of corruption has been a protective shield behind which the Republicans operate with impunity. It will take some time to break this down, but it is about time for Democrats to stop apologizing for Speaker Jim Wright's $55,000 book deal 15 years ago, and start talking about Reform, Reform, Reform.

Posted by Mark Schmitt on 12/23/2004 at 11:49 AM in Decembrist archives | Permalink

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

You've already forgotten the House Bank and S&L scandals? How does an hypocritical nit-wit working for casinos rival those?

Come on. I know you don't like Republicans but this is a bit of a stretch.

Posted by: Lloyd | 12/23/2004 at 12:17 PM

What about Rostenkowski? Nothing he did was as corrupt as what's been done sense?

I think I agree with you on the larger issue though. Though I'm not sure if having the lobbyists be subsurvient to politicians, as is the case now, is better or worse than the other way around.

Posted by: niq | 12/23/2004 at 08:25 PM

What about Rostenkowski? What about the House bank? OK, for the benefit of readers who aren't 100 years old, let's review: Rostenkowski stole postage stamps and some office furniture. He went to jail for it, showed remorse, and was pardoned at the urging of many Republicans. The House bank was essentially a stupid, poorly managed way for members to take advances against their own pay, at no cost to anyone.

Abramoff and Quinlan took $82 million from the poorest, most disadvantaged Americans. And their accomplices were the highest-placed Republicans in power.

Case closed.

Posted by: Mark Schmitt | 12/24/2004 at 12:05 AM

So Lobbying and Legal Representation (both legal) are worse than actual indictable offenses? And what's this "at no cost to anyone"? Members of congress were overdrawing their accounts months, sometimes years into the future. They weren't paying interest and they weren't giving the money back. By their own laws they could have been fined up to a million dollars a day. Yeah, that's poorly managed managed alright. That kind of poor bank management would land you or I in jail.

Dan Rostenkowski was indicted for corruption and convicted of Mail Fraud and Bill Clinton was the one that pardoned him. (Laying the groundwork for many more questionable pardons to come.)

But you still haven't discussed the Keating five? (Yes there was one Republican involved but guess who that was.)

Actually for those so inclined, wikipedia does a nice job of laying out US political scandals here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_scandals_of_the_United_States

Mark, no party is perfect and you know that power corrupts absolutely. Please dont make the mistake too many others do in pretending wrong is right just to make a political point.

Posted by: Lloyd | 12/24/2004 at 06:30 AM

I'm with you on reform, reform, reform, but Democrats do need to work hard to clear off a record that a lot of people have seen as corrupt (tolerably or not) for a long time. Cook County, Tweed, the Kansas City machine, other machines...

I've written about this at:
http://simonstl.com/articles/reform.html

At this point it seems like reform is both a coherent message for Democrats and the right thing to do. Actually doing reform rather than just talking is, as the Republicans are demonstrating now, a tough thing to do, but I think there's reason to hope we can do better.

Posted by: Simon St.Laurent | 12/24/2004 at 08:51 PM

The Corruption of American Politics: What Went Wrong and Why, by Elizabeth Drew
Have you read this? It's not about the current administration, but I thought it was really interesting.

Posted by: Margot | 12/27/2004 at 03:12 AM

Let's not forget the indictments of the Reagan administration, which to my recollection vastly outnumber those of any recent admin. Influence peddling going on all over the place.

And of course there's "legal corruption": the growing power of lobbyists and donors. Somehow, regular folks can never organize to press their case the way cartels, whole industries, or wealthy individualls can. Well, maybe theoretically they can, (i.e. if Unions actually could organize, or if "the people would just get together" - hah) but anybody who doesn't see a problem with the landscape as it is has their head buried in the sand.

Posted by: Crab Nebula | 12/27/2004 at 01:33 PM

Thanks Mark for the summary of what Rostenkowski did. I for some reason thought he had done some slightly more corrupt things. Maybe he did but was just never accused of them.

Posted by: niq | 12/27/2004 at 02:03 PM

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/analysis/pundits.prose/gettinger/gettinger2.shtml

http://www.courttv.com/archive/legaldocs/government/rostenkowski.html

Posted by: Lloyd | 12/28/2004 at 09:38 AM

Lloyd, your initial reaction above is telling: "So Lobbying and Legal Representation (both legal) are worse than actual indictable offenses?" Do I detect an overly-defensive posture vis a vis the practice of Law and the fine art of Lobbying? Perhaps this helps explain your eagerness to engage in a childish pissing contest about which party's scandals are more or less morally reprehensible. Whatever. Personally, I sympathize with Mark's opinion here and suspect that we've hit some kind of corruption crest that's simply begging to come crashing down. But maybe he's wrong? Who knows and who really cares? I'm a west-coast Democrat. I'm too young to appreciate or understand the relative seriousness of Rostenkowski's past crimes. But I'm too old to think that my lack of knowledge on this front excludes me from participating in and shaping the process going forward. I don't like the policies and practices of the current batch of Republicans at all. Lloyd, get over yourself and your bizarre fascination with the tired old mis-deeds of yesteryear. Today's misdeeds are just as good, if not better, than the old ones! There's work to be done.

Posted by: fnook | 12/29/2004 at 09:51 AM

I would be the last to defend the lobbying or legal professions and you are right, what's done is done. The truth be told, I really don't expect much moral high ground to be taken by anyone given an enormous amount of power as power always begs corruption.

My only point was to answer this particular quote:

"There was plenty of corruption in "Democratic Washington," but even leaving out the "peculiar grossness" of this one, you won't find anything remotely comparable to this in the decades of Democratic control."

That's it. And if you re-read that statement you'll see that the "bizarre fascination with the tired old mis-deeds of yesteryear" is only to put context to the premise.

Now if Mark wanted to use the rule changes made to protect DeLay's post in the event of indictment he would have a very good point. In my opinion that was a very low moment in congressional history and I'm ashamed that it happened. But to point out a lobbying effort as some grievous sin against humanity when that kind of crap is so universal to all of Washington?!? - The argument just doesn't work.

I would much rather read and discuss Mark's (and your) take on tax and social security reform, affordable healthcare, etc than have to answer the tired old "the Republicans are Evil" crap, but that's what the post was about.

Posted by: Lloyd | 12/30/2004 at 05:20 AM

Anybody have the details on Phil Gramm's investments in 'titty flicks', i.e., soft-core porn?

Posted by: Jon Koppenhoefer | 01/06/2005 at 01:40 AM

blog blog blog blog blog blog blog blog blog blog blog blog blog blog blog blog blog blog blog blog blog

Posted by: aame | 03/29/2005 at 06:48 AM

asiatinnen asiatische black girls gratis porn gratis porno gratis sex kostenlos porn kostenlos porno kostenlos sex lesben nackte mädchen nackte frauen natursekt nylon rasierte schwangere voyeur cumshot

Posted by: aaas | 04/06/2005 at 08:46 AM