You know, the funny thing is, I used to be a fairly strong Republican, and am still registered as one.
Via a commenter over at Balloon Juice, this Boston Globe story about Congressional oversight of the Executive Branch:
Back in the mid-1990s, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, aggressively delving into alleged misconduct by the Clinton administration, logged 140 hours of sworn testimony into whether former president Bill Clinton had used the White House Christmas card list to identify potential Democratic donors.
In the past two years, a House committee has managed to take only 12 hours of sworn testimony about the abuse of prisoners at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.
(Snip)
An examination of committees' own reports found that the House Government Reform Committee held just 37 hearings described as ''oversight" or investigative in nature during the last Congress, down from 135 such hearings held by its predecessor, the House Government Operations Committee, in 1993-94, the last year the Democrats controlled the chamber. Party loyalty does not account for the difference: In 1993-94, the Democrats were investigating a Democratic administration.
Representative Tom Davis, the current chairman of the Government Reform Committee, the chamber's chief watchdog for government waste and abuse, said his panel had not abdicated its oversight role, which many consider critical to the separation of powers in government.
''What aren't we doing? We aren't going after the mini scandal du jour, to try to embarrass the administration on a hearing that's going nowhere," said Davis, Republican of Virginia.
Well, for sure if you don't have the hearing it will certainly be "going nowhere." And, depending on how you define "scandal du jour", you can avoid having hearings at all. After all, if the world doesn't end, then it can't really be that important, can it?
More:
''Congress has enormous power and it does nothing," said Frank Silbey, a former investigator for the Senate Labor Committee under both parties. ''It is absolutely the worst situation I have ever seen in my life. Congress shows no inclination to expand the public's right to know. That's one of the reasons for government oversight."
Controversies such as the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, abuses at US detention facilities at the Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib prisons, and the revealing of former CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson's name have gone largely unscrutinized on Capitol Hill.
Instead, congressional committees have directed oversight at such topics as steroid abuses in sports and ''diploma mill" universities -- topics critics say are worthy, but which do not fulfill Congress's responsibility to be a check on the executive branch.
Further, some of the recent hearings defined as oversight by panel leadership in fact served to advance a Bush administration agenda. In addition to the hearings into faith-based service providers and drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, House and Senate panels have sought to expose the dangers of buying imported or pharmaceuticals sold on the Internet, buttressing a Republican and drug-industry position that Americans should not be permitted to buy cut-rate prescription drugs outside the United States.
This is one of my hobby-horses. The Constitution was written (for all those strict-constructionists out there) in order to prevent tyranny: three separate but equal branches. Congress gets to authorize (and confiscate) money. The Executive gets to spend it. The Executive gets to make day-to-day policy decisions, and actually execute policy. The Congress gets to call them to their chambers and ask them very pointed questions about how they're spending the money, and what they are spending it on. This Congress, in particular, has utterly failed to do so.
I think, in the future, that when we look back at the Bush Presidency, we'll be forced to conclude that one of the reasons that things got so screwed up is that Congress failed to actually hold the Executive accountable. If Congress had done (was doing) its job, we clearly wouldn't be where we are today on Iraq, New Orleans, the budget, or terrorism.
Posted by baltar at November 21, 2005 06:34 PM | TrackBack | Posted to PoliticsAgreed. And I can't get over that Christmas card list/Abu Ghraib comparison - it's horrifying.
There has been, of course, a good deal of work on "divided" government in political science, and a lot of good things seem to come from it - perhaps most importantly, responsible and sound (relatively, at least) economic policies. So if we want to fix the economy we should vote for Democrats for Congress in '06.
But of course it's much more than simply a partisan issue. In the past Congress has been willing to investigate and check presidential usurpations of authority, whether the president was of the same party or not. But given the Bush/Rove style of politics, well, it's a shame that Congress has been so easily cowed during this presidency.
Remind me, who did that Congresswoman from Ohio think was a coward?
Posted by: Armand at November 22, 2005 09:28 AM | PERMALINKnice post. thanks for the heads-up and the link.
and of course, bla bla bla, outraged, furious, speechless, etc.
it's amazing how tiring it's getting. i'm heading home for turkey day and we'll be gathering at the home of long-time family friends, one of whom is a staunch republican who has proven willing to defend not just old fashioned republicanism, but bushism as well (which, as everyone continues to note, is almost completely incompatible with any traditional and historic understanding of republicanism). one bloodsport at the dinner table is to pick on me, the token arch liberal. usually i rise to the occasion.
but i have realized that this year i really don't care. anyone who isn't convinced by now that bush is a liar, an autocrat, and an opportunist of extraordinarily broad stripe (that is, he's been precisely as moderate or conservative as the situation has required for over a decade, and there appears to be no guiding ethos, no clear trend line, nothing), is probably unpersuadable. and i'm getting really tired of trying.
better to just talk about books. the weather. living room color schemes. wine. things to be thankful for. a category that affirmatively excludes bush, both for those who clearly are not grateful, and i think for some of those who publicly would claim otherwise. i think there are a lot of republicans in and out of government toeing the line because they believe they must but not out of any conviction about bush. and that's a shame.
Posted by: Moon at November 22, 2005 09:59 AM | PERMALINKI disagree. I think that in the wake of Katrina and with how things are in Iraq that a lot of possible Bush foes are out there. The problem is that most of them don't know enough about what's going on to really dislike him. Now there are those who will continue to love him. And there are those who simply like to be obstinate and argue, no matter how little there is to support their argument. But I don't think everyone is a lost cause. I mean his approval rating is abysmal after all.
Posted by: Armand at November 22, 2005 10:26 AM | PERMALINKperhaps i was referring to a particular breed of supporter: the one who has her sources, consults them religiously, believes them to be authoritative and objective, etc. there are always people willing to listen; but the host of the dinner i'm attending is not one of them. i used to find fighting with her sporting, but implacability in the face of overwhelming evidence is just depressing, and i don't feel like looking it in the eye.
Posted by: moon at November 22, 2005 01:04 PM | PERMALINKIt's probably better for the digestion, anyway. :)
Posted by: binky at November 22, 2005 01:07 PM | PERMALINKi'm sure you're right. and now, if you'll excuse me, i'm off to drive 400 miles on the worst driving day of the year into the teeth of the most traffic-addled region of the world this side of delhi.
happy thanksgiving to the coup!
Posted by: moon at November 23, 2005 09:32 AM | PERMALINK