The recent passage by the House of the FISA Bill was-- for anyone who believes that Congress has an obligation to protect against Executive abuse of the Constitution OR to Democratic values like fair play-- mind-boggling. When political expediency trumps representation, expect lots of derelict-of-duty behavior on the Hill.
Here's how it works inside the belly of the beast...let's suspend the spin for a moment.
It's an election year. Both Democrats and Republicans are anxious to clear the decks. Both parties want to take off the burner certain hot-button political issues. So, the leadership of both parties comes together behind closed doors, makes a deal and then lines up the votes for passage. Then the partisan spin machines go into overdrive.
Your Congressman may have voted for or against passage of FISA legislation which emasculates the 14th Amendment by allowing retroactive immunity for warrantless, illegal wiretapping conducted by telecoms at the behest of the Executive Branch. It didn't matter.
The roll call vote by House members was, with some exceptions I'll concede, contrived to give Representatives who felt vulnerable in an election year cover by voting YEA with Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer. More progressive Representatives could vote NAY-- it wasn't going to affect the outcome. The whole vote was a charade. No matter how Representative X voted, the calculus had been forged so that passage of a FISA bill which tramples the Constitution and sought by a President with 29% approval rating sailed through.
This week, Senate Majority Leader Reid will oversee a similar charade. He will strip the immunity provision from the House Bill and call for a floor vote. It will fail-- not enough votes. Then some Senators who voted YEA on stripping the failed immunity provision will vote YEA for approval of the House version, say, "in the interest of national security...best we could get...it's not what I wanted but......"
In the days of Richard Nixon, this sort of thing happened on the DL. As part and parcel of a pattern of abuses of Executive Privilege known as the Watergate Scandal, the Executive Branch was backed down by the Senate Watergate Committee (lead by staunch, bipartisan defenders of the Constitution such as Senators Ervin (D-NC) and Baker (R-TN)). America was well-served by the checks and balances built into the US Constitution. Democracy worked.
Fast-forward almost three decades. The Democratic leadership supports granting the telecom companies a free pass on their illegal activities. We will not have the benefit of any discovery through due process in the courts, meaning we'll likely never know how the Bush Administration coerced the telecoms to cooperate and what deal the telecoms struck to protect themselves against liability.
There's little disagreement and no lack of outroar over the Bush Administration's cloak-and-dagger activities. However, that's no longer the question at hand. Rather, why is the American public, especially Democrats and moderate-to-progressive Independents, complacent? Complacent as in Nixonian-abuses of three decades ago are are okay today? Complacent as in Constitutional checks and balances no longer matter? Complacent as in "well, it's just what the Congress has to do in order to get so-and-so elected" enough? In short, what's wrong?
The answer is, we live in a time when political expediency drives policy. And politics doesn't make for policy which works for our country, be you a Democrat, Republican or Independent.
This is democracy at its worst folks. Politics is driving policy, not the other way around. It's not all about George Bush, or one particular politician's vote. Democracy works when we get good outcomes at the end of the day. It works when parties and their leaders stand on principle and show a little courage. It works when the Congress stands up to a wreckless Executive branch, using the full powers granted under the Constitution. It's no accident that Congress' approval ratings are almost as low (or lower) than the President's.
So what is a citizen to do? I don't expect Washington to change unless enough Americans change behavior. For starters vote and register others to do likewise. Hold your legislators accountable, with your votes, your voices and your pocketbooks. Don't keep sending the same old, same old to Washington if you expect anything to change. Think about elections as term limits which occur every two and four years.
I believe Senator Obama recently said that "change is about more than changing parties in Washington." He is right.
Vote for what you want, not what what you think you can get.
Jim Neal
Chapel Hill, NC