I
like my politics on the serious side. Policy works for me, not knee-jerk
reactions. To achieve this lofty ideal needs two principal things, serious
politicians and serious media. Sadly, both seem to be lacking. On the one hand,
there is a President-elect who still thinks he is campaigning, via Twitter. Do
we need to know in a tweet that the new host of The Apprentice is less popular?
On the other hand, these days the American media seems to prefer sensationalism,
rather than old-fashioned fair and balanced reporting; if the facts don’t
exist, never mind. Just invent them.
Let
me start with the American press and its handling of the American Embassy to Jerusalem
story, the proposed move of the Embassy from Tel-Aviv. If you read the wealth
of press stories on this topic, it would appear that the soon-to-be President
has had “an idea” and is doing something novel. He wants to shake up Middle
East prejudices, as well as change American foreign policy without so much as a
‘by your leave’ to the present administration, the State department, Congress
and the incoming Secretary of State.
Here are the facts. This week, three Republican senators, Rubio (R-FLA),
Heller (R-NEV) and Cruz (R-TEXAS), introduced a bill to halve funds for embassy
security, construction and maintenance until the new President moves the U.S. embassy
in Israel to Jerusalem. The proposed measure ends a waiver enjoyed by the last three
Presidents, Clinton, Bush and Obama, getting round a 1995 law requiring the
embassy move to Jerusalem by 1999, failing which there would be funding cuts? It didn’t take much research to establish the
truth that this Trump proposal is old news.
President-elect Trump’s proposal will not be easy to put into practice. He
will find that campaigning in poetry will soon morph into governing in prose,
just like other Presidential candidates who made the same promise before
reneging once in office to avoid a predetermination of peace
negotiations. To state the obvious, both Israelis and Palestinians lay
claim to Jerusalem and its status is one of the most challenging issues in
reaching a peaceful two-state solution. A move like this by the American
administration will put the peace talks back for years.
As for funding cuts, diplomatic security funding for Israel increased more
than 1000% between 1998 and 2012, according to the Center for American Progress.
But I guess a radical-sounding new Commander-in-Chief-in-waiting, who is announcing
approval to a radical change in policy, supported by Senate heavyweights, is
good copy for America’s press.
Next, what of the volte-face on gutting the House Ethics Committee?
Ethics can be defined as a system of accepted beliefs that control moral
behavior. Sadly, over time, I have reached the view that such a definition
cannot possibly apply to politicians. Plato knew it thousands of years ago. If
you don’t believe me, read “The Republic.” If you think ethics in US government
is a lost cause but that we Brits hold the high moral ground, please recall the
MPs expenses scandal, revealed by The
Daily Telegraph in 2009. So many MPs hands were caught in the cookie jar or
the expensive duck house. Corruption in politics everywhere may be the default
position. All the more reason, therefore, to have an independent House Ethics
Committee.
Last week,
the House of Representatives determined to wreck the Office of Congressional
Ethics. After a torrent of critical headlines, countless phone calls to
Congress and tweets from the President-elect, the House Republicans reversed their
plans. It was the legislative version of the Hokey Cokey. What was all the fuss
about? The new provisions would have placed the Independent Congressional Ethics
Office under the oversight of the House Ethics Committee and barred the ICEO from
releasing reports to the public. Congress’ most aggressive watchdog would
have lost its independence and been effectively neutered. Common Cause, a nonpartisan
group, pointed out that exactly eleven years ago lobbyist Jack Abramoff, whose
crimes lead to the creation of the IOCE, pleaded guilty to charges which
involved his corrupting D.C. legislators.
Rep. Steve
King (R-Iowa) said he will now work to completely abolish the IOCE, citing
concerns over anonymous whistleblowers making accusations against members and
the IOCE leaking information to the press. Asked to provide an example of the IOCE
leaking, King failed to come up with anything and got testy. “Just Google it,”
he said.
Nancy Pelosi,
House Minority Leader issued a statement after the proposal was dropped: “Once
again, the American people have seen the toxic dysfunction of a Republican
House that will do anything to further their special interest agenda, thwart
transparency and undermine the public trust.”
So should we
anticipate a spirit of friendship and non-partisanship across the House aisle
in the new Congress? I jest. Looks like partisanship and hatred-filled business
as usual. According to former Obama adviser David Axelrod: “This House ethics drama was an absolute gift to Donald Trump: a big, fat
zeppelin for him to shoot down.” Trump was able to tell his Republican
colleagues they got it wrong. Pity nobody seems to be able to tell him the very
same thing.
What a fiasco! The broadsheet
press went to town on the conduct of the Republican legislators in the House.
Do these legislators really fear the IOCE? One has to wonder why. This conduct may
be completely irrational on the part of Republican congressmen who should know
better. But are they looking for a freer hand in conducting their business?
Either way, they need to be reminded yet again why they are in D.C. It is for
the benefit of the voters, not the other way round.
If this is a taste of things to
come in Congress, the new President may not keep that full head of hair for
long. He’ll be tearing it out. Mind you, if it’s a wig, will it matter? Just
more smoke and mirrors in Washington.
No comments:
Post a Comment