From: dks@athena.mit.edu (dks)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Congress-Bashing and Bush-Bashing
Date: 22 Aug 92 21:33:20 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.


In two recent articles that I found in a.f.d-q, one keithd@versyss.com
(Keith Doyle) and one mss2@quads.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer) offer
an interesting point and counterpoint.  Keith lodges a partisan complaint
about the President.  Michael offers a partisan counter-complaint about
the Congress, and intends for us to conclude that it is as valid as Keith's
partisan complaint.  I see what he means, but I reject the suggested
conclusion.  If you care why, read on.  If you want only to read bad jokes
about Dannikins, move on or wait for my next post.

By the way, this post has so little to do with Dannikins -- he wouldn't
even understand a word of it -- that I have set follow-ups elsewhere.
Note that I have no intention of responding to any such follow-ups.

	kd = Keith Doyle
	#
	ms = Michael S. Schiffer


kd > I'm pretty tired of George's whining about Congress.
#
ms > I'm pretty tired of the Democrats' whining about the President.

You're both right: it's all whining.  But there is a difference.

To whine about "Congress" is vague and meaningless, except as demagoguery.
There are hundreds of Senators and Representatives, few of whom are
thoroughly objectionable *to the people who elected them.*  If they were
all that bad, they wouldn't be there.  For the occupant of, say, a hotel room
in Houston to whine about the identity or actions of a representative of the
people of, say, Orange County is condescending at best.  The Honorable Senator
for the Great State of Blah-Blah is answerable first and foremost not to you
and me but to the Great People of the Great State of Blah-Blah.
 [ Michael: if your bi-partisan counter-argument is that Congressional
   turnover is *generically* too low and that incumbents have so many
   advantages that their frequent re-election is somehow undemocratic,
   then tell me why George Bush vetoed a campaign reform bill sent to
   him by "Congress" and offered nothing in its place.]

But whining about the President is not so meaningless.  There is exactly
*one* President to whose specific policies (or non-policies) at least half
the country apparently objects.  Worse, by the vagaries of the electoral
college -- that invisible trick we play on the individual voter -- an
impostor can be elected President who may or may not represent the choice
of the majority of the voting population in the first place.  The
Presidential election is the only one in which we elect an official
nationally and in his own right.  To whine about the President, therefore,
is to acknowledge that we *as a nation* have made an embarrassing mistake
in our only nation-wide electoral decision.

So, to whine about old George, while not very constructive, is at least
more constructive than whining about a mythical "Congress."  To equate
the two whines is disingenuous, at best.


kd > Get this George, the Congress is SUPPOSED to be at odds with the
kd > President.  Ever hear about our system of checks and balances?
kd > If the Republicans can't agree with the Democrats on something,
kd > it's probably because its a bad idea.  Ever hear about compromise?
kd > If ya can't convince the other guy that it's a good idea, then
kd > it probably ain't.
#
ms > Get this guys, the President is SUPPOSED to be at odds with the
ms > Congress.  Ever hear about our system of checks and balances?  If the
ms > Democrats can't agree with the Republicans on something, it's probably
ms > because it's a bad idea.  Ever hear about compromise?  If ya can't
ms > convince the other guy that it's a good idea, then it probably ain't.

Generally, I agree with both of you, and with Michael's implied point that
the two failures are equivalent.  However, it is the Congress that makes the
laws; if a one-term President has issued thirty-one vetoes (and counting), I
have to ask myself just what this President thinks he is doing.  And when I
ask myself that question, I cannot avoid the suspicion that this alleged
President of all the people is blindly defending some failed pseudo-economic
ideology that only he and a few other millionaires still believe.  Moreover,
if a President's legislative strategy is *so* utterly dependent upon the veto
power, then I think that President is ignoring or has misunderstood the
*ideal* nature of our Constitutional checks and balances.

So I concede the equivalence of the two failures to the extent that it takes
two to tango; but I deny the equivalence to the extent that one of the two
apparently has no idea that he is *in* a tango, and no idea what a tango *is*.


kd > Neither the Republicans or the Democrats are supposed to have
kd > carte-blanche, that's how our system was designed.  But the Republicans 
kd > just can't seem to stand that.  They keep trying to end-run around
kd > the system.   That's what "school choice" is about, a method of
kd > circumventing seperation between church and state.  That's what
kd > Iran-Contra (and Watergate too for that matter) was about, you
kd > guys just can't stand to work within the system, you have to find 
kd > ways to work around it.
#
ms > Neither the Democrats or the Republicans are supposed to have
ms > carte-blanche, that's how our system was designed.  But the Democrats
ms > just can't seem to stand that.  They keep trying to end-run around the
ms > system.  That's what "national health care" is about, an attempt to
ms > expand Congress' role beyond the specific, limited powers enumerated
ms > to it.  That's what the office of special prosecutor is about--
ms > turning disagreements on foreign policy into criminal matters.

This is absurd.

Anyone who expects me simply to object to the phrase "national health care"
is a fool (or thinks I am one).  If "national health care" -- whatever that
undefined term means -- is unconstitutional, so are Social Security, Medicare,
and Medicaid.  I refuse to take any politician seriously who objects to 
"national health care" on constitutional grounds *until* that politician also
comes out firmly against these other programs on constitutional grounds.

As for the office of special prosecutor, first of all I note that it has
nothing particularly to do with foreign policy.  The statute applies to a
variety of executive acts, including those that nearly gave us the pathetic
sado-masochistic spectacle of Richard Nixon hanging by his short and curlies.

As for the office of special prosecutor being an intrusion into the
President's allegedly legitimate "control" over foreign policy, I refer
you to the Constitution of the United States, which says (in part):
      
      The Congress shall have the power
      
      [...]

      To borrow money on the credit of the United States:
      
      To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the
      several states, and with the Indian tribes:
      
      [...]
      
      To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on
      the high seas, and offences against the law of nations:
      
      To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and
      make rules concerning captures on land and water:
      
      [...]
      

      To make rules for the government and regulation of the
      land and naval forces:
      
      To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the
      laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions:
      
      To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia,
      and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the
      service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively,
      the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training
      the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress:
      
      [...]
      
      To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying
      into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested
      by this constitution in the government of the United States, or
      in any department or officer thereof.

I argue that a President's alleged "control" is *at least called into
question* by each of these clauses.  If you object to the office of
special prosecutor, I ask you especially to read the last clause carefully.

Moreover, to argue that the current drive in Congress to appoint a special
prosecutor to investigate Bush's latest foreign adventures derives simply
from alleged "disagreements on foreign policy" is to ignore statements by
Bush's own Department of Commerce that documents have been altered and the
record falsified.  Are you seriously suggesting that the Department of
Commerce itself simply disagrees with George Bush's foreign policy?

Please don't ask me to debate your point in detail.  I have neither the
time nor the interest.  If -- after reading the Constitution and considering
the statements made by people in the Commerce Department -- if you are still
defending Bush, then so be it.  Go in (Congressionally-declared) peace.


kd > Congress bashing is nothing but whining because a significant
kd > majority of this country don't agree with you.  Fortunately,
kd > this country doesn't give into your kind of tyranny quite so 
kd > easily.
|
ms > President bashing is nothing but whining because a significant
ms > majority of this country don't agree with you.  Fortunately, this
ms > country doesn't give into your kind of tyranny quite so easily.

I have already pointed out the flaw in this statement of equivalence.
"President-bashing," as you so delicately put it, is almost useless but
it is markedly more useful than bashing the "Congress" as if it were a
monolith.


Abandoning at the end the pretense of symmetry, Michael goes out
on a limb and writes the following post-script:
ms > P.S. Seriously, though, I'm not particularly happy with the
ms > performance of _either_ branch of government.  But Congress is the one
ms > which has the lower turnover rate.  Maybe we should try electing
ms > Clinton to the presidency and a Republican majority to Congress?
ms > Could be interesting...

Fine with me.  Elect your Republicans to Congress.  I predict that
President Clinton, if elected, will work more productively with his
opposition -- from *both* parties -- than old George has worked or will
ever work with his.


Dhanesh

Clinton/Gore: Government that *works*.
Baker-Bush/Quayl: Government that whines about government.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle