1/03/2006

ABRAMOFF PLEADS GUILTY

Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty today to charges of conspiracy, fraud, and tax evasion under a plea bargain which limits him to ten years in prison. TPM and TPMCafe are Abramoff central today - check out the insight and speculation over there. As Josh observes:
This seems more like the beginning of a long process. They go after Ney first and continue their investigation, with Abramoff's fate hanging in the balance, depending on how cooperative he chooses to be in providing information on coconspirators and sundry bad acts.
Abramoff is a bad, bad man (more on this from me here, here, and here) who did bad things not - as talking heads will tell you tomorrow - out of simple personal greed but as a devoted cog in a fundamentally corrupt corporate-GOP alliance which continues to wreak havoc on the country. So taking away his toys and using his testimony to go after his proven accomplices is a step - but only a step - in restoring honor and integrity to government. Max Sawicky offered a sobering reminder that even if we're facing a "Watergate moment," Watergate itself, and the Democrats' response, failed to stem the rising conservative tide in this country:
Watergate ushered in a generation of Democratic politicians with little in the way of ideological commitment other than honesty. Not long after Watergate we got the Reagan revolution. Honesty is not enough.
In response, Josh argued that
the country was in the midst of a broad shift toward the right. The scandals surrounding Watergate upended the political dynamic in the country but not the ideological one...the other side's scandals can reshuffle the political cards temporarily. But it probably won't be for that long if the scandals aren't intrinsically connected to the bases of the afflicted party's power or if their fall-out doesn't catalyze a some deeper political and ideological reconfiguration in the country. Nixon's dirty-tricksterism wasn't at the heart of the rise of the American right in the late 20th century. So it continued on without him.
Thing is, whether you buy Max's argument that the attention to Watergate ultimately hastened the rise of Reaganism or Josh's that it merely failed to do more than slow it, I think the key point going forward is that it's not just the facts on the ground that determine whether the scandals now inundating the White House are understood as "intrinsically connected to the bases of the afflicted party's power." Conservatives, with many in the media in tow, aren't just trying to obscure the partisan nature of the current scandal crop - they're trying to obscure the ideological nature of it. That's because they recognize that this is about more than just the 2006 elections, important as they are - it's about public understandings of what kind of people are fit to lead the country. So it's on progressives to expose not just the partisan narrative behind these scandals but the ideological one as well: Republicans take bribes from men like Jack Abramoff because they are the party of big business, and they represent wealthy elites pushing policies that hurt working families. Republicans lie about what their intelligence says and how they get it because they need to justify immoral wars that make us less safe and obscure their attacks on our privacy that leave us less free. Needless to say, these talking points will not win any points from Al From, Chris Matthews, or Joe Klein. But if it's elections you care about, each of these men only gets one vote. And if it's ideological realignment you care about, they may get even less.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home