An article today by 3k set me to thinking again about a conversation I had last week. I don't think anyone has hammered this point yet, so I thought I would take it up.
I would like to see our democratic leaders set up operating rules where the ethics committee has some teeth. I think they should begin with the assumption that in 15 years, if the democrats don't have any checks and balances (as the republicans did not), then they will fall into corruption. We all suffer when this happens. As Lord Acton said: "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." I think the corruption process occurs faster with the top-down, follow-the-leader model preferred by the republicans than it does with the bottom up, let-everyone-say-their-piece model preferred by the democrats. Nevertheless, democrats will become corrupt and we should put plans in place to slow this inevitable process.
There is a clear temptation to immediately investigate every republican and weaken them before the next election. I fully support this effort for the ones that have lied and cheated the people to the point that poor people are suffering and good people are dying. There may be many who fall into this category, unfortunately. Maybe there are some democrats that fall in that category as well. There are lawyers here who probably have a much clearer idea than I about who needs to be taken down.
Rather than enjoy the blood sport that is sure to ensue from a take-no-prisoners approach to cleaning things up, I would prefer a longer view. I think we should see if we can set up some rules where the minority republicans have a clear role in defining and attacking democrats. I suspect that they would do this willingly and the constant attacks will help to keep us honest.
Like a double-bitted axe, this is a dangerous tool that can cut you in the back if not wielded appropriately. Clearly the republicans would love to have the next Lowinsky debates begin immediately for our leaders. However, with careful thought (and I think democrats are particularly good at that) we may be able to figure out a way to use the natural tendencies of the minority to keep the majority honest and, as a byproduct, in power longer.
I, for one, would give up a few smaller victories in the gladiator games and crucifixions that await dirty-handed republicans if I thought it would keep democrats honest.
Maybe I'm not thinking positively enough about a democratic government, or maybe the ethics committee wasn't particularly soft last cycle. What do you folks think?