|
 istening
to the chatterers on the presumed Jeffords betrayal is like that
weird disease where the senses get all confused
with
each other, and you end up smelling colors and seeing sounds and
hearing odors. Someone from Newsweek said that Bush really
wasn't so good at mollifying people who disagreed with him, and
some other bright person, I think from the Hudson Institute, blamed
it all on the White House's failure to be nice to Jeffords. That
sort of analysis confuses good manners with political seriousness,
as well as blaming the wrong party (if anyone mishandled Jeffords
it's more likely to have been Lott et. al. than W. and Cheney).
A long-time professional politician doesn't switch parties just
because he's miffed by Republican rudeness; he's seen the Democrats
refuse elementary courtesies to Strom Thurmond, quite clearly because
they hope to wear him down and add to their body count. He's not
performing this astonishing favor because he expects to be treated
with tender loving care. He's taking a risk, and rather a big risk
at that. He will lose most of his staff, who spent hours begging
him not to betray the trust of his voters and his associates. And
he surely knows that defectors are usually treated with suspicion,
if not contempt. If you've done it once, you can do it again, so
who can trust you?
One might argue, as many no doubt will, that Jeffords is doing it
"out of conviction," but there are two answers to that: He's known
for years that he was a square liberal peg in a round Republican
party hole, so if he felt so strongly about it he would have moved
long since. Second, there is no sudden, fundamental disagreement
between Jeffords and the Republican party. No, the motives are
neither personal nor ideological, they are political. He believes
he will obtain a large net gain from this operation, and he may
well be right. He will certainly be rewarded by the Democrats,
and the Republicans, well, the Republicans are not known for their
sharp teeth and slashing claws.
Despite being routinely battered and humiliated by the Democrats,
the Republicans seem bound and determined to conduct their political
business in accordance with the religious instruction "turn the
other cheek." This sort of feel-good silliness led Machiavelli
to reflect that Christianity is a great thing, provided it's the
right sort of Christianity, namely the sort that kills heretics
and marches on infidels, not the sort that files into church to
listen to sermons about forgiving enemies and turning other cheeks,
and certainly not the sort that finds martyrdom attractive.
This administration and its congressional allies have not only been
maddeningly slow in getting their nominees in place, but they have
left the bulk of the government's apparatus in the hands of Clinton
appointees. Scores of high-level Clintonians remain just where
they were before Inauguration Day. In some cases, as for example
the Department of State, that is largely because the new secretary
wants it that way, believing that "professionals" will carry out
the president's mission as effectively as people who are chosen
by him and serve at his pleasure. In other cases, as for example
the Pentagon, it is largely because Democrats in the Senate have
slowed down the tempo of confirmation to record lows, perhaps because
they knew Jeffords's move was coming. Whatever the explanation,
the Republicans have left some of their finest people totally exposed
to Democrats' slanders, and they do not seem inclined to take effective
action. George W. Bush may well owe his office to Ted Olson's brilliance
and energy, yet I haven't heard a single word from the White House
denouncing the lies directed at him by Democrats on the Judiciary
Committee.
If W. had routinely called for the resignation of all political
appointees from the previous administration, he would have served
notice that he was serious about governing, and understood that
power equals personnel. By failing to act seriously, he invited
further challenge, and the Democrats eagerly responded by pouncing
on his nominees with their well-honed methods of personal destruction.
Now he's in a real jam. If he thought it was hard getting his team
in place with Democrats in the minority, just wait until he sends
his nominees to face Democratic committee chairmen.
It's admirable to preach sweet reason, but it's not good enough
for a leader, who must answer Machiavelli's basic question: Is it
better to be loved or feared? Love does work some times, but it's
tenuous; fear works every time.
Anybody out there afraid of the Republicans? Certainly not Jim
Jeffords.
|
