Well, frumps, in a classic role reversal this week, World Class porker, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) told the big bad wolf Obama that, if Shelby doesn’t get his senatorial “propers,” he intends to “huff and puff and blow the [White] House down.” In case you’ve missed this particularly gross piece of senatorial politicking, the gist of it is that Sen. Shelby has dredged up an arcane parliamentary rule of the Senate (that has never actually been used) to place a “blanket hold” on all of President Obama’s still-pending presidential appointments (which is most of them, at this count). Shelby’s objective: to bring the national government to a screeching halt until he gets two pieces of juicy pork for his home state of Alabama, that have been hung up in legislative “limbo” for awhile.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
I guess, for some reason, Shelby has rethought his previous position, which he ballyhoos on his official website:
“As a U.S. Senator, I believe that the review of judicial nominations is one of the most important responsibilities of the Senate, and I firmly believe that each of the President’s nominees should be afforded a straight up-or-down vote. I do not think that any of us want to operate in an environment where federal judicial nominees must receive 60 votes in order to be confirmed. To that end I firmly support changing the Senate rules to require that a simple majority be necessary to confirm all judicial nominees, thus ending the continuous filibuster of them.”
Shelby’s move is an audacious one even in the annals of the pursuit of pork, which can backfire if one appears to be even greedier or more conniving than current political standards prescribe. But desperate times call for desperate measures and, you see, Sen. Shelby is up for re-election this year (for his fifth term, no less). It’s probably not a coincidence that Sen. Shelby was inspired to make this “blanket hold” gesture (as well as his stalemate of the financial reform debates in which he is the ranking Republican) immediately after Scott Brown was elected, ending the Democratic super-majority in the Senate.
But then Sen. Shelby has always had a highly refined sense of political timing as demonstrated by his 1994 party switch from Democrat to Republican one day after Republicans re-established their majority in Congress. Of course the erstwhile Shelby had to swallow these words parceled out to the Birmingham Post-Herald in a more democratic mood:
“I have been a Democrat all my life,” he told the Birmingham Post-Herald newspaper. I guess I was born a Democrat.” (Kamen, Al. “Ship Abandons Crew,” The Washington Post, 11 Nov. 1994.) Nevertheless, if one hopes to be a World Class porker, it pays to be a member of the majority.”
Actually, I’m a little surprised that Shelby’s not a Democrat again but, I guess there’s still time.
The New Normal
There’s just so much that sucks about this situation that it’s hard to know where to begin to characterize, analyze or ameliorate the effrontery of it; and of course politicians, pundits, journalists and bloggers of all stripes and persuasions have already offered up many unique and colorful remedies that either Obama or Harry Reid or both should bring to bear on the gentleman from Alabama. So, I really feel disinclined to pile on with one more suggestion, especially since I’m inclined to agree with the few who claim that Sen. Shelby might have unwittingly provided a terrific opportunity for an administration that is starting to show some teeth.
As Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo put it:
“In this case, we’re not dealing with a stand on partisanship or ideology or simple political shiv play which I guess can each be respected in their own place. This is more like just a stick up. Gimme my money and I’ll give you your Senate back! Worse than a squeegee man and not much better than a bank robber, Shelby is shutting down the president’s ability to appoint anyone to anything until he gets his way. In a sense Shelby’s gambit is little different from what countless other senators of both parties have done in the past, using the senate rules to get the White House’s attention to pry some money free from the federal government. But the scale is unheard and the moment is different. The only mystery about this one is which is more outrageous — Shelby’s hold or the fact that the rest of the senators of both parties allow it.”
“Perhaps, like so many other times, this will be today’s outrage that is the new normal by tomorrow. But these are volatile times. And I wonder if this isn’t the live wire in the gasoline.”
It is, of course, chilling to think of this sort of moral bankruptcy as “the new normal.” I don’t think that Shelby is characteristic of all congressional politicians, so there is some room for hope there. I think that he is considerably worse than many, I’m just not sure whether it’s brilliant conniving on his part or a sort of personal or cultural cluelessness that leads men like Shelby to believe that “this is how the game is played” and “these are the perks of office.” It doesn’t really matter much, which it is – it has to be rooted out; connivers have to be held to account and the clueless have to be taught that these games don’t work anymore.
What Would Jefferson Do?
We’re standing at a unique juncture in our history, as a government, in which the size and complexity of governing and the increased real-time visibility that “we the people” have into our government’s rules and procedures and checks and balances provide unprecedented opportunity to modernize our government so that it continues to work better for us and so that we can better avoid the mistakes and missteps of the past. There is no other institution or sector of American society that has been so completely untouched by modernization than our governmental processes.
We wouldn’t dream of putting cars together on Henry Ford’s original assembly lines because, despite the intrinsic value of Ford’s revolutionary innovation, we have learned, through the experience of working with his model every day, better and better and more cost-effective ways of improving on his base idea. So why would we continue to try to govern a 21st century nation with a 200-plus year old “assembly line.”
For whatever reason – magical thinking, fear of change – whatever, we have grown into a people hung up on the Cult of the Founding Fathers. Too many of us seem to believe that we are some sort of Master Culture established by a small pantheon of demi-gods named Washington, Jefferson and Adams and that if we change even a word of the sacred Constitution handed down by them we can expect the direst of consequences. If you don’t believe that this is still a strong current in American thinking, just attend a few Tea Party events.
Of course, that kind of mentality makes it extremely difficult for those in the business of governing to improve the thing. Many Americans obviously and fully believe that their human rights were bestowed upon them by Jefferson & Co. and can be just as easily lost if we tamper with the foundational documents. That mindset demonstrates two things about Americans: 1) many are woefully ignorant of the basic tenets of the Western Civilization of which they are a part and 2) given Americans’ superstitious attachment to the Constitution, it’s usually easier to leave well-enough alone or to make up some “insider rules” to keep things moving along.
The rules that govern the Senate are just such made-up “insider rules.” Jefferson & Co, never said “Thou shalt Filibuster if Thou art not getting Thy Way.” Nor did they say, “if you really want to get a new president over a barrel, put a hold on his appointments so he can’t run government.” In short, there is no Constitutional framework or mandate for how the Senate operates. Jefferson & Co., perhaps too hastily, probably believed that Senators would be mostly grown-ups capable of self-discipline as a body.
The cruelest irony in all of this is that Jefferson & Co. were modernists, they were ideological revolutionaries who had had enough of the archaisms of European monarchy. They were looking for something unrecognizably new that addressed new ways of thinking and being and new ways of relating to governance and society. They believed that the times and human advances demanded such changes. I am almost certain that they would be appalled to find us latter-day boobs still trying to hew to a 200 year old construct, ignoring the “course of human events.” We can be sure that they wouldn’t have left it alone throughout 200 years of change. As a matter of fact, they didn’t leave it alone for any appreciable amount of time before adding ten amendments of their own.
And to be sure, I’m not deliberately overlooking the fact that we have indeed “amended” our constitution a number of times but, if you look back over the history of more modern amendments you’ll find many colorful examples of the same kind of superstitious reluctance and obstructive politicking that I’m talking about here.
If It’s Broke, Fix It
It is my sincere belief that what we are seeing in our government, today, is not a temporary aberration as some of us seem to hope. I believe that, for many reasons, it is, indeed, “the new normal.” Bipartisanship is no longer workable because there is too much money involved in being radically partisan. Civility is gone because there are no consequences for incivility. Representation “of the people”, no longer exists because the people cannot afford to compete with monied interests for equal representation. The only change for the better is, in my opinion, a mixed blessing – politicians seem to be slightly more honest because they no longer need to hide their corruption, it is more or less expected and goes largely undisciplined.
Our Sen. Shelby is a perfect example. His “blanket hold” was originally a cowardly little secret move until it was discovered and “leaked” to the media. Undaunted, the good Senator, when exposed, immediately went on the offensive thus:
“Sen. Shelby has placed holds on several pending nominees due to unaddressed national security concerns,” Shelby spokesperson Jonathan Graffeo said in a statement. “Among his concerns” are the progress on multi-billion dollar defense contract that would see planes built in Mobile, AL and Obama’s decision to scrap a $45 million FBI improvised explosive device lab Shelby secured an earmark for in 2008.
“The Obama Administration wants to read terrorists our Miranda rights and try them in U.S. courts but is impeding the processing of evidence that could lead to convictions,” he said. “If this administration were as worried about hunting down terrorists as it is about the confirmation of low-level political nominations, America would be a safer place.”
Fair enough, let’s take a closer look at those issues so dear to Sen. Shelby’s heart. First, he says that he has placed holds on ALL pending Obama appointments due to “unaddressed national security concerns.” Sounds serious, eh?
The biggie here, of course is the fate of the $40 billion dollar defense contract that could go to Alabama; the FBI lab is just the cherry on top. Here’s the way this all went down: In 2008, the Air Force put out a Request for Proposal to build some mid-air refueling tankers. The bidding came to a Boeing proposal versus a joint Northrup-Airbus proposal. The most important fact here, Shelby-wise, is that if Airbus wins the contract, they’ll set up in Alabama; if Boeng wins they’ll set up in not-Alabama. Northrup-EADS won the bidding but, in the meantime, the Government Accounting Office discovered that the Air Force had made a mistake in calculating the award. The Air Force then wrote a new RFP which effectively would have made it impossible for Airbus to rebid the contract successfully. Airbus threatened to withdraw from the bidding whereupon Sen. Shelby leaned on the Air Force to “game” their new RFP in Airbus’ favor.
Maybe it’s me, but I fail to see the link between who builds these airplanes and “unaddressed national security issues.” Boeing? – Airbus? They’ll get built by someone, right? Just might not happen in Alabama . . .
So maybe that one issue is a fluke in an otherwise judicious senator. Oh, but, then there’s also the Financial Reform wending its way through Senate committees, that Shelby squashed like a bug, also this week.
The Wall Street Journal covered that one in remarkably (for WSJ) emotional terms, saying:
“Wall Street reform died this week. It died Tuesday before the Senate Banking Committee from unnatural and illogical causes: the finance lobby, obstruction, fear-mongering and plain ignorance.”
“Rarely does financial history offer a living, breathing voice of reason in crucial times, but listening to Paul Volcker spell out his plan for reform was such an event. Too bad for all of us, his prescription for reform will be discarded like loan underwriting standards for a multi-family home near Las Vegas.”
“But given the reaction of committee members, the Volcker Rule appears to be doomed. By the end of his testimony the dais was nearly empty. Big bank stocks rallied. The only question now is whether the bill will be gutted or euthanized like failed investment banks would have been under the Volcker plan.”
“Richard Shelby, the committee’s ranking Republican, apparently has agreed to carry the mantle for Wall Street interests (an assertion he denies). He questioned Mr. Volcker in a fashion that suggested the utmost respect for a great hero of economic crises past and the patronizing condescension one would give an 82-year-old suspected of being out-of-touch with the modern financial world and, perhaps, a bit senile” [Shelby is 76 and running for another 6-year term in November].
“Sen. Shelby has his own interests. He is running for reelection this year. Wall Street has been the leading contributor to his campaign and the leadership political action committee this cycle, with $600,000 in donations through Jan. 10, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Add the real estate and insurance industries and Mr. Shelby has taken $2 million from financial interests, more than double the contributions from the next leading industry, the CRP said.”
“But that’s how it is in Washington these days. Unlike the Congress of the 1930s this body is more beholden to politics than to reforming a broken system that has put the American economy in a hole so deep the competitiveness of every American industry is now in question.”
“History be damned, they told Mr. Volcker. Even if we’re doomed to repeat it.”
The people of Alabama, at least, have a crack at fixing this in November; they could vote this hypocritical, self-interested scoundrel out of office and earn the respect of a grateful nation. That is — if they can manage to raise $15 million, between now and then, to put them on an equal footing with the contributions from Shelby’s business cronies and good-old-boy network . . .
Technorati Tags: Sen. Richard Shelby, Alabama, President Obama, Senate Banking Committee, Paul Volcker, Financial Reform, presidential appointees, blanket hold, GOP obstruction
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Sometimes I think, "They can't go any lower."
Alas, I'm always wrong.
p { margin: 0; }
Chin up, Mary Lee . . . after all, they've decided to try whistling through the \”Graveyard of Empires.\” Maybe when we're flat broke, busted and disgusted we can all start over again.