One of the things I'm trying to do, as I go about my living, is come up with a good understanding of Washington. After about two and a half years of study, here's what I have: it's us versus them. It might be hard for those unfamiliar with official Washington to entirely grasp the flavor of the situation. The best I can come up with is that the enmity that one side holds for the other is that which most Americans might reserve for their understanding of pure evil -- the same sort of general sentiment that I think was behind the decision of the mayor of Inglis, Florida, to issue a proclamation banishing Satan.
I think this might be part of the reason politics in this country just doesn't work right. Politics and governance is sort a great expression of humanity, a constant rubbing together of individuality that results in great sport and good fun. It should be engaging, because it is, wholly and fully, about people. But many good decent men and women just don't care. And it seems to me that one of the reasons is we’re playing the whole thing wrong.
Politics should be graceful and flowing, like soccer. Positions and tactics and approaches should be ever-changing, adaptive to the game at hand. Instead, we play it like rugby. Joining the game involves conscription into a role that scripts out what can be done and how it can be gone about getting done. Fly-halfs move the ball up the flank, Republicans oppose this and Democrats support that. The result is awkward and stunted, brutal and not much fun. Our scripted and proscribed style of politics requires us to assume that we know who the good guys are and the bad guys are. But I don't know any perfect people and I don't know many with no good in them. The dichotomy is just false. People know that and just ignore the whole mess. And as much as the way we do politics limits individual potential, it limits accountability -- the presumption of good intention counts for just about as much as good work.
Thus end my long introduction to this excerpt from a May 2002 Progressive interview with Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin:
I think this might be part of the reason politics in this country just doesn't work right. Politics and governance is sort a great expression of humanity, a constant rubbing together of individuality that results in great sport and good fun. It should be engaging, because it is, wholly and fully, about people. But many good decent men and women just don't care. And it seems to me that one of the reasons is we’re playing the whole thing wrong.
Politics should be graceful and flowing, like soccer. Positions and tactics and approaches should be ever-changing, adaptive to the game at hand. Instead, we play it like rugby. Joining the game involves conscription into a role that scripts out what can be done and how it can be gone about getting done. Fly-halfs move the ball up the flank, Republicans oppose this and Democrats support that. The result is awkward and stunted, brutal and not much fun. Our scripted and proscribed style of politics requires us to assume that we know who the good guys are and the bad guys are. But I don't know any perfect people and I don't know many with no good in them. The dichotomy is just false. People know that and just ignore the whole mess. And as much as the way we do politics limits individual potential, it limits accountability -- the presumption of good intention counts for just about as much as good work.
Thus end my long introduction to this excerpt from a May 2002 Progressive interview with Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin:
Progressive: You were the lone Senator to oppose the USA Patriot Act. How would you describe Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle's reaction to you?
Feingold: Fairly brutal. I want to thank Tom Daschle on campaign finance reform. He really came around and helped us move it through. I had a reverse experience on the USA Patriot Act. When the original Ashcroft anti-terrorism bill came in, they wanted us to pass it two days later. I thought this thing was going to be greatly improved. They did get rid of a couple of provisions, like looking into educational records. But there were still twelve or thirteen very disturbing things, and I thought, OK, we'll take care of this. But then something happened in the Senate, and I think the Democratic leadership was complicit in this. Suddenly, the bottom fell out. I was told that a unanimous consent agreement was being offered with no amendments and no debate. They asked me to give unanimous consent. I refused. The Majority Leader came to the floor and spoke very sternly to me, in front of his staff and my staff, saying, you can't do this, the whole thing will fall apart. I said, what do you mean it'll fall apart, they want to pass this, too. I said, I refuse to consent. He was on the belligerent side for Tom Daschle. And everybody said they were surprised at his remarks. Reporters thought it was so unlike him. And it is unlike him.
One of the interesting stories in this--and this is one that a lot of progressives don't want to hear, but it's the truth--is that John Ashcroft gave me a call and said, what are your concerns? And I told him my concerns about the computer stuff and sneak and peek searches. He said, you know, I think you might be right. The White House overruled him, which is a fundamental point here. Anyone who wants to focus their fire on Ashcroft is missing the point. This is the Bush Administration. Ashcroft is its instrument.
What happened in the Senate was that even though the Attorney General was going to allow these changes to make it moderately better, the Administration insisted, and Daschle went along with pushing this through. I finally got to offer the amendments late at night, and I got up there and I made my arguments. And a lot of Senators came around to me, who, of course, voted for the bill, and said, you know, I think you're right. Then Daschle comes out and says, I want you to vote against this amendment and all the other Feingold amendments; don't even consider the merits. This was one of the most fundamental pieces of legislation relating to the Bill of Rights in the history of our country! It was a low point for me in terms of being a Democrat and somebody who believes in civil liberties.
11:12 PM
|

