To cover for Fetterman, the New York Times now posits that Dem lawmakers and voters are fine with staffers and lobbyists making all the decisions.
Michael is right. New York Times reporter Annie Karni’s dispatch chronicling Senator John Fetterman’s recovery from a case of severe depression practically begs for a thorough deconstruction.
Michael put his finger on the most shocking of its revelations: the undeniable fact that either the voters of Pennsylvania were deliberately misled about the nature of Fetterman’s condition or Fetterman was. Either way, the physicians who signed off on his campaign and insisted he could serve his six-year term without incident should, at the very least, be professionally liable for this deception.
That revelation was rendered even more shocking because it was presented to readers with an air of nonchalance, as though it was always a ruse we were all in on. Only now can we say openly what we acknowledged in 2022 with winks and nods. Another reveal packaged as though it isn’t a reveal at all is the disclosure the senator has been forced to outsource his judgment to aides, and those aides are keen to defer to K Street. And guess what? That’s no big deal:
It is not unusual for lawmakers to be told by members of their staff, sometimes after the fact, what bills they are co-sponsoring. With the exception of calls to cabinet officials or meetings with the chief executives of companies that are important to their states, there are few meetings that cannot be handled by senior staff.
“Any lobbyist will tell you that if you get as high as the chief of staff, and that chief makes a promise to you that the senator will do something, that will be accepted,” said Ross Baker, professor of political science at Rutgers University and a former aide to Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada. “It will be as if the senator himself gave the OK.”
Let’s stipulate for the sake of argument that this claim is true (it’s not). Let’s pretend lawmakers often delegate important decisions to staff, and a handshake between a lobbyist and their senior staff is as good as a commitment from an elected official. Even if that were true, the idea being retailed here — that Democratic lawmakers and their voters are okay with that — insults Times readers’ intelligence.
For most of our adult lives, Democratic lawmakers have made a moral crusade out of reducing lobbyists’ influence. Progressive activist groups inveigh against the “special interests” whose fingers on the scales of government “distorts democracy.” Democratic presidents engage in theatrical displays of hostility toward this industry as a matter of course, even as they surround themselves with its members. When Democrats retook control of the House in 2018, they made cracking down on lobbying groups and their mesmeric powers of persuasion priority No. 1.
Registered lobbyists must navigate a thicket of regulations and restrictions designed to check their influence and track their reach. In some (blue) states, lobbyists are required to disclose what they’re working on, who they’re working with, how much money is being spent, and who benefits from their expenditures. Why? Because Democrats don’t trust lobbyists!
The political imperative of the moment is to convince the political class in Washington that Fetterman, who is clearly incapable of doing the job to which he was elected, can function just as any replicable part in a complex apparatus does. He’s not a lawmaker, but he doesn’t have to be. He’s a widget, and he pushes the buttons he’s told to press. Moreover, not only is that A-OK, sophisticates understand that this is how it’s always worked.
The implication is that only the tragically naïve would object to circumstances that are unremarkable to true insiders. And everyone wants to be an insider. Right?
It’s transparent. It’s dishonest. And it’s gross.