Bridge to Nowhere

There is no idealist center to the Republican Party any more - it's been sold for power: for votes, for junkets, for golf, for bribes, for contributions. The GOP is best described these days as its most pathetic pork project, the infamous Bridge to Nowhere in the Alaska of Ted Stephens. These Republicans have not built a bridge to a finer, prosperous, free American future. Their bridge leads nowhere, will transport only the privileged few, and it costs us billions in treasure and hard-won freedom in principle.

Reckless spending is the hallmark of these Republicans in power (and I take pains to note, not all Republicans) - the spending of tax dollars, of opportunity, and of lives. The arrogance is most stunning when it ignores the truth to spin the yarn, to tell the lie, to link Al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein and effective government to Republican-only lobby shops on K Street. Their motto is this: if we think it, it must be right. It is right. And when challenged? 9/11 covers most transgressions nicely.

A wise commentator on this blog once trotted out his (in his case, conservative) old-saw credo about big government: that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Well yes, even among the tax-cutters, the small government types, the free market patent medicine hawkers - quite possibly exceptionally so, for the distance traveled in political theory seems much farther. As often as the pundits tried to spin the Abramoff plea as "both sides do it," this is a Republican scandal - mainly because the lame-ass Democrats had no power. It's the GOP that sold itself. It's the GOP that peddled the formula of war and high spending for unattainable perfect security - like a drunk straggering down Pennsylvania Avenue doing a half-cocked imitation of the classic Music Man knock-off from the Simpsons.

"Monorail. Hic. Monorail!"

Still, it's the formerly holier-than-thou (quite literally claimed - no metaphor there) screed of the Republicans - the cross brandished by the likes of Delay and Frist - that rankles this lefty Catholic. It's self-satisifed, arrogant moral preening rooted in a falsity of the mythical Pharisees. It attaches hateful defense of marriage and tarted-up creationism, yellow dog patriotism and big corporation land grabs to the side of a grimy jalopy and calls it American Christianity.

It sniffs at anything that attacks its own version of convention, its own tale of safety. Like Josiah Bounderby, the self-made man in Dickens' brilliant Hard Times, this GOP machine pretends out of pure self-delusion, believes its own recent myth-making, till the grand lie is exposed. And then? Well then, the Bounderby facade crumbles, ruined by scandal.

The righteous, transparent voice of Bounderby in this post is played by the grand lady of the right Peggy Noonan, much-beloved Brain of Reagan and GOP wordsmith, who twists herself into elephantine knots in an argument about big government, temptation, and Republicanism from the WSJ. It says everything you need to know about the mindset of today's GOP, proving the prosecution's case in the very defense [link here, tip to John Cole]:

The problem with government is that it is run by people, and people are flawed. They are not virtue machines. We are all of us, even the best of us, vulnerable to the call of the low: to greed, conceit, insensitivity, ruthlessness, the desire to show you’re in control, in charge, in command. If the problem with government is that it is run by people and not, as James Madison put it, angels, the problem with big government is that it is run by a lot of people who are not angels. They can, together and in the aggregate, do much mischief. They can and inevitably will produce a great deal of injustice, corruption and heartlessness.

People in government—people in a huge, sprawling government—often get carried away. And they don’t always even mean to. But they are little tiny parts of a large and overwhelming thing. If government is a steamroller, and that is in good part how I see it, the individuals who work in it are the atoms in the steel. The force of forward motion carries them along. There is inevitably an unaccountability, and in time often an indifference about what the steamroller rolls over. All the busy little atoms are watching each other, competing with each other, winning one for their little cluster. And no one is looking out and being protective of what the steamroller is rolling over—traditions, shared beliefs, individual rights, old assumptions, whatever is being rolled over today.

This is essentially why conservatives of my generation and earlier generations don’t like big government.

UPDATE: Very spirited comments on this, thanks one and all. I particularly like the idea of the Bridge to Nowhere as the rallying cry against the GOP's current corrupt ruling class in the mid-terms.

Comments

[Ralph]

Tom, you are so right about the Noonan article. It's very telling that she never mentions the following words: lobbyist, money, campaign finance reform, business, corporation, influence, pet project... Instead, she mentions big government - which is supposed to be the source of all our woes. Government is supposed to be the terrible beast that few can wrestle with and come out clean. She acts as if all corrupt politicians in the country should be granted amnesty because they are victims of the system too. My eyes are welling up with tears of empathy for those poor folks who would be angels but, alas, they are only human.

She presents an inaccurate picture of the last twenty-five years. She claims that with the Reagan revolution: "The growth of government slowed, its demands to some degree beaten back." The truth is that the rich got a huge tax cut, deficits increased, defense contractors and the pentagon got more money, and the rest of us got the shaft. What she is talking about is a transfer of money from the poor and middle class to the wealthy and powerful. What she is talking about is profits over people.

Then she spews this beauty: "The leadership of the Republican Party was now, in its avowed aims if not its daily practices, antigovernment." Now isn't that the entire problem in a nut shell. No, what she is saying is, they were anti-government when one of it's goals was promoting equality, fairness and the general welfare. I dont see welfare as a bad word since it's in the preamble of the Constitution. Welfare includes worker safety, environmental protection, affordable healthcare, education... These are the things that conservatives dont want tax money wasted on. You see, they believe in the free market. Just give all the money back to the rich and they will invest and we will all be able to become Donald Trump. These people are a cancer on our country, and must be stopped.

[Tom K]

I didn't see any "elephantine knots" in Noonon's piece (even assuming such a thing exists). Rather than a confused defense, as you characterize it, I read her piece as a fairly direct condemnation of what many of the Republicans have become in power.

I guess you and Ralph don't like that, because it means recognizing that the ideas that these people have betrayed may have been worth honoring (at least by those who professed, and got elected by professing, them). But you shouldn't let your ideology so color your assessment of a pretty decent piece.

Any party in power is corrupt, by definition. I don't say that to excuse or mitigate, and don't wish to do either, but it is so.

[Ralph]

Tom K, you write: "Any party in power is corrupt, by definition." Talk about letting ideology color your assessment! The Democrats controlled the House for 50 years and they never sank as low as this crop of Republicans. I mean...just look at the extreme partisan gerrymandering that went on in Texas. And that's just the tip of the iceberg with these people. You see, what makes many of the people Republicans is the idea of social darwinism. When the core of your belief is the triumph of the individual (which includes the corporations) over the collective good, you get selfish, power hungry, cynical jerks like Delay and co. Delay is the poster child for what's wrong with the GOP. Delay was motivated to run for Congress because he didnt like OSHA telling him what poisons he could use to kill bugs. These are not public servants, they are self servants. Sure some Dems are part of the problem, and they are not offering solutions as they should.

My point is that the anti-government, pro-business, anti-regulation ideology leads to this sort of patronage that cannot be equaled by the left. Just look at health care reform or Social Security. If you create a national health plan who loses? HMOs, Drug Companies who give much money to those who oppose the idea: Republicans. Same with Wall Street who stood to gain billions from a slice of Social Security money. Who supported it overwhelmingly: Republicans. All the way down the line, when there is money to be made, Republicans will side with the money and screw the little guy. From the Fed minimum wage not being raised in 10 years, failing to include ergonomic standards to OSHA rules, claiming that the estate tax hurts family farms (lie), perverting the bankruptcy laws in favor of credit card companies with no exceptions for medical or national disasters... the list goes on. Republicans have been championing the cause of big busines for decades and you are telling me that it's all six of one, half dozen of another? I dont think so. I know the difference betweed Liberals and Conservatives. Liberals believe in good, lean government. Conservatives believe in money. That's thier god and fuck everyone else.

[Ralph]

Oh, and I almost forgot: Conservative dont like an educated public because then they cant manipulate the voters. In my experience, whenever I argue with a Bush supporter, they never, ever have their facts right. By facts, I am not talking about opinions. Saddam had a hand in 9/11 is a good one. Even Bush said there was no evidence I tell them. They dont care, or even believe me. The reason these people dont know what they are talking about is that they only watch Fox news and listen to Rush Limbaugh. Everything is based on faith. I mean, even if you disagree with the left on most issues, at least you should have the facts. The only difference between David Brooks and Robert Novak is that Brooks deals with reality and still sides with the Republicans, while Novak cares only about attacking the opposition, no matter what. He will say and do anything like Bush/Cheney. Just look at the 2004 elections. Jesus, if I were a Republican, I would have been ashamed of that campaign. Remember Cheney: "if the american people make the wrong choice this November, there's a good chance that we'll be hit again, and hit hard." What kind of crap is that? Fear mongering, throwing hundreds of billions of dollars away into Iraq, and dishonest arguments are dooming the Republicans to another 50 years out of power.

[Jon Swift]

What makes America great is that anyone has the opportunity to make enough money to buy political influence. The indictment of Abramoff is an indictment of American deomocracy.

[Ellen1910]

This is essentially why conservatives of my generation and earlier generations don’t like big government. Peggy Noonan (b. September 7, 1950)

Ah, yes. The generation of Newt Gingrich and Tom Delay.

[Ralph]

Noonan is either lying to herself, or thinks we're all morons. Most conservative Republicans do like big government when it can copulate with corporate power. (I think Colin Powell even called this admin fascist, didnt' he?) They hate the social programs because none of their old college pals/ex-business partners/donors aren't getting something out of it. That's what the whole out-sourcing/privitization thing is about. (Watch the film 'Enron: Smartest Guys in the Room' for perfect example). Conservatives say that government, by definition is inefficient and wasteful. Well, look at the low admin costs of running Social Security, and then ask Congress to investigate the billions of dollars missing in Iraq. They also love executive power; they love a strong leader/father figure to tell them what to do and who to fear. They are like overgrown children in expensive clothes (freedom fries anyone?) You see, when they say 'freedom' they actually mean 'slavery'. Deja vu anyone?

[SqueakyRat]

George Will wrote essentially the same column today in the Washington Post. Call it the "Big Government made me do it" defense.

[Tom K]

It's just obvious that the more goodies the Govt. is doling out, the more incentive and opportunity there is for corruption.

It's not a defense, any more than it is a defense for a Willie Sutton to explain that he robbed banks because "that's where the money is."

I didn't read Noonan as writing it as a defense, and I haven't read Will's column, but if either of them, or anyone else, offers it as a defense, that's just silly. Noting it as a reality, however, is common sense.

[Tom K]

I see Rep. Paul has said it better than I can:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul297.html

[pk]

Newt Gingrich made the argument yesterday, too. It's a pretty smooth con: blame the concept of "government" for your corruption and incompetence in running the government, and then say it all just proves your point. Good night, New Orleans!

It's all predicated on people's distaste for paying taxes, carefully stoked by the idea that social programs coddle...let's say "lazy people"...and, by implication, such a government goes easy on the other deadly sins and lifestyle choices.

But the righteous and wealthy can afford to be cavalier about government; after all, it's not for them, but for the helpless, luckless, and inept--which the rest of us usually are, at some point, to some degree. (Yes, some lazy gay junky immigrants might get a "free ride," but we all gonna pay for our sins one day.)

Government used to give us some dignity and support at those times. Now we just have to hope Anderson Cooper notices us. Eventually people are going to miss things the government used to do for them.

What I don't understand is how anyone makes or buys the argument that government is flawed because people are flawed, yet fails to believe the same of big business and the free market. Are we to believe that God runs the free market?

If so--and so it would seem--then what a curious inversion of Christian values. God helps the moneychangers, and leaves the moneychangers to help the poor. Or not, you know--as long as the megachurch has an updated look to make mall-goers feel comfortable. Christians are consumers, consumers are Christian, and the market helps them that help themselves.

[Tom K]

*What I don't understand is how anyone makes or buys the argument that government is flawed because people are flawed, yet fails to believe the same of big business and the free market. Are we to believe that God runs the free market?*

Noonan's piece addresses this point, though only in passing. It's a pretty simple argument: individual corporations have much less power than the government, and have to compete with each other on top of that. So they are less dangerous than government.

That's not to say there's no role for govt. in keeping corporate power in check (in my view at least). Antitrust is one traditionally-recognized area for this (though there are those who disagree, I regard it as essential to ensure that corporations are truly restrained by competition).

Another, developing area is in the realm of privacy. With centralization of consumer information with credit bureaus and the like, the old argument -- that any given business was relatively unthreatening because, although presumptively as inclined to do ill as the government, it had less influence over your life -- is less certain in its application. Such entities are becoming like utilities, with the ability to do greater good or harm than regular businesses.

The answer as to where Christian principles regarding just behavior comes in is easier to answer. Christ instructed individuals how to behave: he nowhere instructed governments to compel, for example, giving to the poor. Indeed, compulsory giving is morally neutral, demonstrating only a desire to stay out of jail.

Of course, that argument cuts both ways in today's political environment. If government shouldn't enforce the moral duty of charitable giving, why should it restrain things like homosexuality or abortion? The religious/moral answer, by those who favor the latter but not the former, is that government should restrain bad acts, but not compel good ones, because prohibatory decrees generally are less intrusive than mandatory ones. ("You can't go into room 311" generally is less intrusive than "You must go into room 312.") There's certainly some truth to that, I think, though I'm not sure it fully answers the question.

One thing I'm certain of: concentration of power in the govt. to compel "good" behavior of citizens by mandatory decree is dangerous, and can be counted on to end up as a means for members of politically powerful groups to force other people to do what they want.

[the exile]

Tom K is right to the extent that he says that "the more goodies the Govt. is doling out, the more incentive and opportunity there is for corruption." The point is right, but also "duh"-level obvious. It also explains nicely why, as Ralph tells us, the rethugs have always talked a good game about reducing the size of government but have done nothing of the sort, ever, not even under Reagan. Does Noonan really forget all the corruption in HUD and Interior during Reagan's term? She forgets the $500 hammers sold by defense contractors? Military procurement has always been a far better source of kickbacks than, say, Welfare or Social Security. So fact is, Rethug govts have always tended to shrink the least corrupt government expenditures and to grow the most corrupt. Why would they do that?........

[the exile]

Tom K is right to the extent that he says that "the more goodies the Govt. is doling out, the more incentive and opportunity there is for corruption." The point is right, but also "duh"-level obvious. It also explains nicely why, as Ralph tells us, the rethugs have always talked a good game about reducing the size of government but have done nothing of the sort, ever, not even under Reagan. Does Noonan really forget all the corruption in HUD and Interior during Reagan's term? She forgets the $500 hammers sold by defense contractors? Military procurement has always been a far better source of kickbacks than, say, Welfare or Social Security. So fact is, Rethug govts have always tended to shrink the least corrupt government expenditures and to grow the most corrupt. Why would they do that?........

[the exile]

sorry about the double post.

[anon]

this is really a brilliant metaphor:The GOP is best described these days as its most pathetic pork project, the infamous Bridge to Nowhere in the Alaska of Ted Stephens. These Republicans have not built a bridge to a finer, prosperous, free American future. Their bridge leads nowhere, will transport only the privileged few, and it costs us billions

Yes they have sold our country to the highest bidder for a few pieces of silver.

I absolutely love the Metaphor of GOP=Bridge to Nowhere pork project. brilliant.

[roberto]

Noonan's latest is a masterpiece of self-delusion, self-denial and self-serving excuse making. She is forgiving of corrupt politicians (read Republicans) because, after all, they're only human, and nobody ever said they were angels. Can you imagine her extending the same heartfelt sympathies to a group of scandal-beleagured Democrats, especially if the group included Bill Clinton?

Most astoundingly, as if institutions and the people who comprise them are totally unconnected, she blames big government for the corrupting influence on politics. Peggy! Your Republican politicians ARE big government!

[William G. Henders]

Hmm. Another potty mouth of the Left, I see. Allow me to explain why the Abramoff scandal, like so many others before it, will prove to be more devestating to the Dems then it could possibly be to the GOP, much less conservatives.

The Dems bleat daily that they are the "minority" party. That they are the "loyal opposition." Yet who actually does something when a scandal arises? Who opened the investigation into the Plame non-leak? Who is pursuing the leak of an NSA program that threatens national security and possibly civil liberties? Who addressed possible torture at Abu Ghraib? Who is set to clean house over the Abramoff tempest in a teapot that threatens to implicate some of the biggest names in the Republican Party, perhaps the very culture of Republican politics?

Not the "loyal opposition" ... but rather the Bush Administration.

Teh public knows this. Or is growing to know this with each passing day. They, the voting public, will be left to wonder, if the "loyal opposition" cannot even muster the courage to bring such scandals to the light of day, then for what are they good for?

Americans are already starting to realize that if a "loyal opposition" cannot even do its job of defeating the party in powers' corruption and misgovernance (examples of which are legion, apparently), then how can we possibly entrust them with the real job of governing the nation?

Rather, American voters will know they would be wiser to turn to the REpublican Party, which has made some partisan, ideological and hubristic missteps, yes - even engaged in a pattern of criminal behavior it would seem. All those sins, yes, but still the GOP is not so grossly incompetent or lacking in power that it would allow what it has done over the past few years to pass, if it had been the Democrats who had done it.

Truly, the Dems attack the Abramoff scandal at their peril.

Bush has simply to give a speech to the American peoople in which he asks of the Democrats, "Where were you, the party that was supposed to keep us in check, during the troubling 12 months that have recently passed? Keeping politicians honest has been your only job this past few years, but you have failed at that job. America has found you wanting. America needs better from you."

I would not be surprised if some variation of the above were to be included in the upcoming SOTU.

I await your responses, feeble as they may be.

[Tom K]

Henders:

An interesting approach, but I can't see it working. It's a little too much like the old saw where the fellow who murdered his parents pleads for mercy because he's an orphan.

Better, I think, for the Republican leadership to make the argument that such behavior is endemic to both parties (and especially whichever happens to be in power), and to argue this as a reason (among others) to reduce bloated government, than to try to convince the American people that the Dems. are to blame for what appears to be a Repub.-leaning (though bi-partisan) scandal.

[Tom W.]

so TK, the argument is "kill me, I'm guilty."
I like it, in theory....

[themosh]

If Swift was alive he'd be worshipping William G. Henders right now. That was brilliant man. Oh wait. What is it you say? You were serious? haha. hahahahahahaha. hahahahahhahahahahahahhahaha... must... stop... can't... stop.. laughing.. so ridiculous.......

[chris from boca]

the trend today is to consider as big government only programs that benefit the many; when it's the chosen few, the cronies, the defense sector, big pharma, etc. no matter the cost, no matter the effect, this is somehow "conservative". Politics will return to a btter place in the usa when the term "conservative" equates with "criminal" in the same fashion that "liberal" has become equated by the popular culture to mean "radical".

[Tom K]

Tom W:

No, the argument is: reduce government bloat, it is a contributing factor to corruption (which is inherent to any human enterprise). Restore the limited government envisioned by the Constitution, and thus: (i) increase liberty, and (ii) decrease motive and opportunity for corruption.

Point (i) should be sufficient by itself and is the larger point, but Point (ii) has the advantage of addressing the particular issue de jour in a manner consistent with conservative principles, and not dependent upon trying to avoid responsibility of Republicans who have done wrong. I reiterate that the connection between government growth and corruption should in no way be used to excuse particular wrongdoers of either party.

[Tom K]

*the trend today is to consider as big government only programs that benefit the many; when it's the chosen few, the cronies, the defense sector, big pharma, etc. no matter the cost, no matter the effect, this is somehow "conservative".*

That may be the trend in certain circles, but that just illustrates the difference between princpled and unprincipled conservatism. I hope that the better place we return to will be one that respects the limits upon government as to both kinds of programs. Which, by the way, need not (and should not, in my view) mean a return to the social structure that prevailed before the New Deal. Conservatism should respect the recent, as well as the distant, past. It is more a frame of mind, or a predisposition toward restraint (derived from recognition of the limited ability of public programs to improve conditions), than anything else.

Much progress can be made by seeking limited government in an incrementalist, rather than a radical, way. But, under Reagan, that incrementalism meant, at best, slowing the expansion of government, which was probably the best that could be done under the circumstances, but is not enough. Under W, govt. is growing rapidly. Thus, in terms of what was actually done, the Clinton Admin. was perhaps the most conservative of recent years since, unlike Reagan, it operated under a Republican legislature and, unlike W, it faced the restraints of divided power. Not that Bill wanted it that way, of course.

[Tom K]

. . . and putting aside Big Bill's overseas activism.