Many, if not most, of the ills of this country are the result of right-thinking conservatives being forever cajoled into compromise with leftist ideology. It’s been happening for decades. And electing Arlen Specter to chair the Judiciary Committee represents yet another in a long series of erosions of principle.
Arlen Specter has participated in (even orchestrated) massive cover-ups of critical events in this republic’s history that begged to see the light of day. He has been in the pocket of anti-liberty special interest groups the entire span of his four-term senate career, most remarkably placing the economic/physical well-being of this country and its people a distant second to the incessant power-grabs of trial lawyers. On several critical matters of national policy he has declared the US Constitution subservient to international law, most recently proudly declaring that US military personnel should be tried in international courts.
And yet such a man, who has overtly and consistently exhibited an allegiance to power brokers (both foreign and domestic) that supercedes any loyalty he claims to this republic and her people -- and whose political philosophy is more often than not at odds with this administration and the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee -- is likely to be seated as its chair.
Are the inmates running the asylum?
There is nothing (repeat: nothing) in the senate rules that requires that a committee chairmanship be determined on the basis of seniority.
So will someone please explain to me why, after a momentous, historically critical election such as occurred two weeks ago, a man of Arlen Specter’s dubious character and tarnished leadership credentials should be obtaining one of the most powerful positions in Washington? And why, when there are several extremely qualified men (Kyl and Graham come immediatelt to mind) sitting on that very committee who do not need to be strong-armed, under duress, to toe the line, and whose conservative ideology closely mirrors that of the administration, one of those men is not considered more deserving of the post? Does the cream no longer rise to the top in American leadership? (a rhetorical question … the answer is obvious)
In order to obtain this position, Arlen Specter will have to promise to change his stripes, and other men will be passed over – men who have spent their entire political lives fighting for Constitutional principles, and defending that magnificent blueprint from insidious attacks orchestrated by the likes of the man under whose chairmanship they will now sit.
Then there’s the ‘ramifications’ argument. It goes something like this: If Specter were denied the chair, he would work against conservative interests in the senate, especially where judicial nominations are concerned. Translation: According to the ‘unspoken legislative rules’ of the most powerful nation in the free world, senate committee chairmanships can be obtained via a type of political extortion.
If we don't return to valuing merit more than tenure or protocol, we will eventually succeed (if we haven't already) in barring the door to leaders of courage and integrity.
In discussions I have had with people both locally and here on FreeRepublic some have occasionally argued that ‘this is just the way the system works, and the power-brokering is nothing new.’
I don’t agree with the argument that things were not much different years ago. I hear that assertion about the moral fabric of our society as well and I don’t buy it in that respect either. Surely there were political power brokers in our past, and surely there were those whose sense of social morality left a lot to be desired as well, but, in both areas, what used to be something of an aberration is fast becoming the norm. And the fact that, because of the incremental nature of the degradation, we are (in many cases unknowingly) accepting it, does not bode well for us as a civilization.
I cannot assuage my opposition to the ‘you scratch my back/I’ll scratch yours’ theory of power-brokering for two basic reasons: (1) it inevitably leads to incremental leadership corruption and loss of liberty for the individual American, and (2) it causes good and decent people to say ‘this is just the way it is, and we have to simply accept the best that we are able to get out of such an unfortunate system.’ The fact is that our government was not always this way, and unless we at some point say ‘enough is enough!’ our children will be dealing with even more corruption of the system than we are. That is pretty much a given at this point.
The fact is that, if the President and Rick Santorum had endorsed Pat Toomey rather than Arlen Specter in the April Pennsylvania primary, we wouldn't be facing this dilemma now. And now, if a deserving man were elected to the chairmanship, we wouldn't have to consider what many are threatening: removing Specter from his position in the future, if he fails to honor his behind-closed-doors promises. Why make these stupid, characterless decisions in the first place? Why not simply do what is right and avoid the toxic complications resulting from continued compromise? Or is right somehow passe?
When you acquiesce to playing by convoluted rules, which are instituted with less than noble intentions, on a playing field that in no way resembles the one on which you had originally agreed to play, you legitimize both the unfair rules and the dangerous field of play.
We are forever compromising away the integrity of this republic. And there has rarely been a more opportune time than now to apply the brakes – by insisting that the best man for the job of Judiciary chair be chosen. Then if ‘repercussions’ ensue as a result, we deal with them in the same manner. Just as there will necessarily we a web of ‘repercussions’ (because of the current unwieldy nature of the beast), so must there also be a coincidental web of effective responses to them.
You don’t cure a cancer by adapting to it. You cut out its source, and you treat its after-effects.
I, for one, will not rationalize Arlen Specter’s election to the Judiciary chairmanship. Two weeks ago, conservative voters turned out in record numbers showing an unprecedented, implicit faith in those for whom they voted. And this particular myopic, cowardly compromise represents yet another sell-out by a party badly in need of a few history lessons … and a emergency spine transplant.
~ joanie
Well said.
Have a good Holiday!
Well, joanie, you summed it up well and sealed shut all contrary arguments.
Couldn't have been spoken better. Thanks for putting in eloquent words the thoughts and feelings of many of us here.
The only thing I will add is that we didn't even need Bush and Santorum to support Toomey. We just needed to keep them out of campaigning for Specter. Toomey lost by 14,500 votes. I guarantee that Santorum and Bush swayed at least 7,250 voters in Arlen's direction. It's sad when you have to fight your own party.
As you know, I only voted for Bush because the alternative seemed unthinkable to me at the time. But now that the (very short) honeymoon celebration is over, the hangover is setting in. There is no doubt in my mind that he (and his philosophical soul-mates who call themselves "Republicans") will continue to bargain away the principles on which this Country was founded.
I personally called the members of the Judiciary Committee as did thousands of others. I'm sure their royal highnesses got a good laugh out of that during their "closed-door sessions".
P.S. I apologize for sending you the link to the Noonan piece on Specter.
So in that sense its not as if this kind of thing hasn't happened many times before in the republic's history.
...is it. ;^)
Thank you, Joanie.