Watching the GOP seek to normalize, to excuse the actions of the Russians (now that denial won’t work) has been an annoying requirement for catching the news, reading the blogs, or anything that doesn’t involve getting your car fixed. This is the latest item that gives me the What the hell are you thinking! reaction:
A Texas lawmaker on the House intelligence committee says it wasn’t just the Russians who interfered in last year’s election.
Rep. Mike Conaway, R-Midland, is comparing the use of Mexican entertainers to energize Democratic voters to the email hacking that officials say was orchestrated by Vladimir Putin’s government.
“Harry Reid and the Democrats brought in Mexican soap opera stars, singers and entertainers who had immense influence in those communities into Las Vegas, to entertain, get out the vote and so forth,” Conaway told The Dallas Morning News this week. “Those are foreign actors, foreign people, influencing the vote in Nevada. You don’t hear the Democrats screaming and saying one word about that.”
Asked whether he considers that on par with Russian cyber-intrusions that aimed to damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign, Conaway said: “Sure it is, it’s foreign influence. If we’re worried about foreign influence, let’s have the whole story.”
It requires little thought to bring shame down on Conaway’s head, because we know there’s little comparison between a concerted attack to subvert an election by a foreign enemy vs a couple of songs by an acknowledged national of an ally. And this isn’t the only incident.
But, taken as a collection, this should be understood as a symptom of an underlying problem. Now, many folks, like myself, would simply call them conscienceless power-mongers and be done with it, but I think a little thought might yield a bit more insight. Like most commentators, let me pick up my favorite lens and examine the symptoms through it.
First and foremost, the behavior exhibited by most of the GOP consists not of foot-dragging, but active digging in of heels, of refusing to evaluate a problem with an eye towards justice – i.e., they have a baleful view of their own interests, and nothing else. Interestingly, this is also the dominant behavior in the private sector. Quite often companies sue other companies, not because some terrible crime has occurred, but because they can and they think some judge may be convinced that some law or another justifies the suit. There is little consideration for another company’s interests or fortunes; it’s a shark-tank out there. Oh, sure, you’ll find corporate alliances, but this is usually when a foreign-based competitor appears, and an entire industry feels threatened; see SEMATECH for an example.
This is a perfectly understandable behavior for a company, and therefore the executives in charge. The private sector is not in charge of justice. I have no problem with this attitude in this context, although I do think corporations that pay attention to cries of injustice have more potential to succeed than those who discard such notions in their crazed chase after money. But I digress.
But we know the big backers of the GOP are businessmen. The Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson are just two popular names in that category; I’m sure the readers can name thousands more. And it’s not that the businessmen are buying themselves politicians – it’s that the politicians are often businessmen folks themselves. Wonder about that? Look up the biographies of a few of them: Mitt Romney comes right to mind – don’t need to look that one up. Trump is another; Governor Bevin of Kentucky; Governor LePage of Maine; both Presidents Bush; VP Dick Cheney … notice how the names of the discredited GOPers (or soon to be, I suspect) come popping right up?1
So think about it. Any parent can answer this question: where do kids pick up their ethics and morals? From those who are around as they grow up. Similarly, if you train as a private sector, corporate person, particularly an executive who makes these sorts of decisions, then you’re going to pick up the ethics appropriate to that environment. All for the team, no consideration for the other team.
And that’s not government. Folks, our ancestors understand this better than we do. Government is the definer & enforcer of justice, and therefore our Congresscritters must be aware that they have to think in terms of justice, because just as government enforces it, it also feeds off it. A just government is a stable government, because the people respect it, and a stable government leads to a stable society, and when we’re not all fighting with each other about the government, then we’re more likely to find our way to prosperity.
What happens to societies with unjust governments? Some implode – see the fate of Marshall Tito’s Yugoslavia. Some rebel – see Qadhaffi’s Libya, East Germany, the USSR, dozens of others. Sometimes they get lucky – the Nixon White House was just teetering into injustice when an alert free press caught Nixon’s men in the act of perpetrating an injustice and brought him down. The free press of the era is rightly celebrated, and today’s members certainly have a high standard to meet.
Of course, you may argue that those societies fell apart because of many other factors, and I won’t argue that there aren’t contributing factors. But injustice is key. When you see injustice perpetrated by government, then why remain loyal? Some would answer Well, does it benefit me? Problem is, what benefits you today may blow with the wind and run you over tomorrow. So why sign a contract when there is no enforcing authority? Oh, a libertarian might argue that then reputations will be sullied, business will fall off, and the criminal is thus punished. But in a large society like ours, it doesn’t work that way very well. Names are changed, new ignorant customers are found, and the scams continue. Even in today’s society, where there is an enforcing authority, we all know better than to accept an offer from some guy off the street to inspect your roof for hail damage.
Perhaps the nicest way to put this is that the GOP majority, with a few exceptions such as Senator McCain, has never been trained in government ethics. It’s been brayed in their ears that government is big & bad – and, of course, there’s always a little truth laying around to put some ooof in that inflated Santa Claus. The power of government is why there’s a necessity for government ethics – of course. But since they don’t trust government, government ethics is out as well. So all they have to use is their private sector ethics.
Which leads to some of the travesties we’re seeing now. 60+ attempts to repeal the ACA, a program which is apparently succeeding in its purpose. The SCOTUS nominee scandal. A refusal to take a Russian invasion of our electoral politics seriously. Nominees who are, for the most part, inappropriate. A refusal to compromise with President Obama for his entire term. A long history of GOP Administration scandals, while virtually none for the Democrats. I’m sure serious political pundits could come up with dozens more.
But let me leave you with this observation. In logic, there are several ways to prove a statement. One is by taking the statement to be proven and, instead, assuming it to be false. From this assumption you prove an impossibility, such as 1 == 0, and with the proof of the impossibility you now have proved the truth value of the original statement. This is known as Reductio ad absurdum. Given the utter absurdities we’re witnessing these days in the political arena, I think someone decided to prove the statement Government Ethics is good! using the Reductio ad absurdum technique – they negated it, set a bunch of politicians loose with some other ethics structure, and now our merry experimenter is watching the results of his proof. It’s animated logic, folks – try not to get stepped on.
1You disagree about Romney ever being discredited? That’s OK. The point is most prominent GOP politicians are businessmen. A few do learn a different set of ethics for the new environment. Maybe Mitt did while he was governor of Massachusetts. He had a good teacher in his father, George, governor of Michigan and business executive, who did well by all accounts in both occupations. An example of a non-businessman is Governor Brownback of Kansas, who trained as a lawyer and then spent most of his life in various political positions. His brand of economic insanity, on brazen display in Kansas, while he insists the federal government should adapt Kansas policies, indicates some other defect in cognition or character.
