I suppose I really shouldn't do this, but here is Goat Rodeo's Day Five of the impeachment hearings. This was Saturday and was the Republicans' initial presentation, a mere three hours. But I do want to get this out of the way before hearing the rest of the Republican presentation, because from my understanding today's presentation was not as rational as Saturday's.
So what would I say about Saturday's presentation?
Well, it wasn't bad, exactly. And by "not bad," I mean didn't go full on Devin Nunes. It didn't descend into ranting or blatant partisanship, or paranoid conspiracy theories. It didn't defame Joe Biden. It did normal defense lawyer stuff -- tried to poke holes in the prosecution's argument.
The defense was based on the phone call transcript. Trump's lawyers argued that the House Managers were selectively quoting the call, and ignoring context, and that, taken in context, the call was quite innocent. The trouble was that to do so, the lawyers had to, um, selectively quote and ignore context.
Trump, they argue, was concerned about two things -- burden sharing and corruption. As for burden sharing, he mentioned it at the beginning when he said that Germany was not paying its fair share in aid to Ukraine, and Ukrainian President Zelensky agreed. That is not actually true, the the EU contributing more than twice as much as the US and Germany nearly as much, but mere facts are not important to Trump who assumes that even one dollar aid is excessive, so maybe half a point there.
As for corruption, the call never so much as mentions it, although it does mention the Bidens. Trump's lawyers also argued that Trump was legitimately interested in all foreign interference in the 2016 election and wanted it investigated. The trouble with that is, once again, that Trump never so much as mentioned the marginally respectable theories of Ukrainian interference. These theories define "interference" so broadly as to include an editorial or Facebook comment and make some decidedly strained assumptions about the origin of information, but they are at least somewhat reality-based. But Trump did not ask for investigations of whether disclosure of payoffs to Paul Manafort were false; he didn't ask Zelensky to investigate whether any Ukrainians were sources for Fusion GPS; he didn't ask for investigation into the Ukrainian embassy in Washington's communications with Alexandra Chalupa. No, he asked Zelensky to find the "server" that was hacked. And that is downright tinfoil hat territory. Trump's lawyers avoided the subject.
They focused, instead, on the absence of any mention of military aid in the phone call, and friendly discussions of a future meeting. That could be taken as evidence that the phone call was innocent. But only if one ignores the testimony and e-mails of Kurt Volker and Gordon Sondland making clear that they were coaching Zelensky before the phone call of the need to investigate "Burisma and 2016."*
They also focused on the Ukrainians never mentioning the cutoff in military aid before the cutoff was announced in Politico as proof that the Ukrainians were not aware of the cutoff and that military aid therefore could not have been used as a source of pressure. They did what any defense lawyer would do -- minimized and searched for inconsistencies in testimony by Laura Cooper and Catherine Croft** that the Ukrainians appeared to have known about the holdup before then. They also ignore the apparently unanimous consensus of the executive branch that there was no justification and the aid should be released. Nor does it do to say that Trump, as head of the executive branch, could override it. The aid was appropriated by Congress. The Impoundment Control Act forbids the President from not spending money Congress has duly appropriated. There are some exceptions, but they require specific justifications and procedures, and notification to Congress, none of which was done.
And they implausibly took at face value both Trump's and Zelensky's assurances that there was no pressure and no quid pro quo. Particularly Trump's statement, "I want nothing. No quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing," sounds very much like an admission of quid pro quo.
As to obstruction of Congress, the Republicans argued that the President was not required to comply with impeachment subpoenas because the House as a whole had not voted to hold an impeachment inquiry; merely one committee was holding an inquiry. This argument, too, required ignoring a whole lot of context. In particular, it required ignoring the fact that Trump had been making blanket denials of all Congressional subpoenas before Congress initiated impeachment hearing, and suing to block third party subpoenas, arguing that Congress had no authority to demand records except as part of an impeachment inquiry. When Congress opened and impeachment inquiry, he argued that it had no right to demand records because the inquiry was opened the wrong way. And when Congress asked what it would have to do to get cooperation, the response was, drop the impeachment. Oh, yes, and Trump lawyers are arguing in court that the courts have no authority to decide a dispute over whether Congress can subpoena the executive. So, yes, the charge of obstruction of Congress is more than justified.
And they impugned Adam Schiff's character and motives. They raised Schiff's claims that he had "more than circumstantial" evidence of collusion between Trump and the Russians, which really are problematic.*** They also pointed out that the whistle blower spoke to a Schiff aide, and possibly to Schiff himself, before filing the complaint. It does seem a safe assumption that, even if the whistle blower did not talk to Schiff directly, Schiff's aide did pass on the message. That would mean that when Schiff started making loud demands for the whistle blower complaint, he knew more than he let on and was being disingenuous, which is a legitimate complaint. Still, it also appears that a Devin Nunes aide was in regular contact with Giuliani and his henchmen. It seems a safe assumption that Nunes' aide passed their information on to his boss (it would be a serious rogue operation requiring a different kind of investigation if he did not), and so Nunes also knew a great deal more than he let on during the hearings. If we are going to call Schiff as a witness, Nunes or his aide should also be called.
And I will say, this is not the craziest theory of a case I have ever heard a lawyer present.
I once saw a case of a cash register attendant brutally hacked to death with a hoe, with blood splattered all over the store. A local transient was ruled out as a suspect when lab tests revealed no blood on his clothes.**** Public Defenders, defending a suspect who was found later, tried to argue that the transient might have done it. Central to the argument was that the clothes were tested several days later and the blood might have disappeared during that time, even though the clothes were not washed.
I also saw a police brutality case in which a man had been shot three times in the back.***** The police officer argued that the shots took place during a struggle at close range, with cop seizing the victim form behind and the victim firing over his shoulder. The trouble with this argument -- there was no gunpowder residue on the victim's clothes, which should have been found if he was shot at such close range. So the police officer's lawyers argued that it might have fallen off when the paramedics cut the victim's clothes off.
I imagine overworked prosecutors and public defenders make arguments like this all of the time. But a President who can afford top-notch lawyers should do better.
________________________________________________
*Both men denied any knowledge that Burisma was code for the Bidens, even though (1) everyone else seemed to have figured it out, and (2) Rudy Giuliani directly linked the two to Volker.
**Croft for some reason did not testify publicly, so I was not aware of her.
***And, just for the record, the Mueller Report did satisfy me that there was no ongoing conspiracy between Trump and the Russians, even as Trump sought to exploit their actions. I do not believe there was such evidence and Mueller simply missed it. What convinced me of this was when Trump finally surprised everyone by winning the election, the Russians madly scrambled to establish some sort of channel of communications. If there had been an ongoing conspiracy, such a channel would have already existed.
****Actually, there was a little on the knee of his pants, but it was a different blood type from the victim.
*****Just to be clear, the victim survived the shots. However, he was extremely drunk at the time of the incident and did not remember what happened.
Monday, January 27, 2020
Sunday, January 26, 2020
Reflections on the Democratic Side of the Impeachment
How fast things disappear on Google! Some Republican (Newt Gingrich, I believe), tweeted that the fact that the Democrats in the impeachment are represented by Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler while President Trump is represented by Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz says all we need to know. To which our side says, "Yep!"
I have been listening to condensed versions on Lawfare's Goat Rodeo in the belief that listening to or reading the whole thing. It has its drawbacks. In particular, it lacked the "heads on pikes" comments that excited such controversy. Still, there is enough to comment on, and I want to fully comment on what the Democrats had to say before moving on to the Republican side.
Actually, the trial began with debate between both sides about what the rules would be, so we got to hear from Team Trump, but not from either Starr or Dershowitz. Instead we heard from Jay Sekulow and Pat Cipollone. They weren't bad, exactly. Certainly, they refrained from Devin Nunes' substance-free ranting and open paranoia. But I found their arguments either too abstract to mean much, or somewhat disingenuous. In particular, they raised the example of Obama Attorney General Eric Holder, who was held in contempt for failure to produce documents and favorable cited various Democrats condemning the action. The cases are not comparable. Holder turned over some 7,600 pages of documents, but claimed executive privilege over another 1,300. Trump, by contrast, refused to turn over any documents whatever. Sekulow and Cipollone argued that investigators could go to court to order their release. House Managers argued that the documents could be held up in litigation for years, and that the Trump Administration was even arguing in another case that courts had no jurisdiction to hear such disputes.
Next came three days of the Democrats making their case. It was rather mind-numbing, but here are my comments:
First point, I didn't find it as riveting as the the witness testimony before the House. The witnesses were giving new information. House Managers were merely setting forth what the witnesses had already said. It got redundant fast.
Next point: Adam Schiff is very good. And by good, I mostly mean clear, concrete, and specific. That may say as much about my opinion as about any of the speakers, but there it is. In my view, the case is best made by avoiding generalities like "corrupt," or "cheat" or "foreign interference." Schiff was very good at explaining the particular acts that were done and what in particular was wrong with them. For instance, when various Democrats kept saying that Trump was trying to argue that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the election, Schiff clarified. By "interference," Trump did not mean hostile editorials or Facebook posts. He specifically asked the Ukrainians to find the Democratic server which was hacked.
Next: No one else, either the other Democrats or Sekulow or Cipollone was as good. In particular, Val Demings really needs to use less exclamation points. There was nothing really wrong with what she said, but I found the over-dramatic tone detracted from her content.
I did think the Democrats did a generally good job on debunking some of Team Trump's arguments. They pointed out in detail why Biden's threat to withhold aid unless the Ukrainians removed their prosecutor was not comparable to Trump threatening to withhold aid unless the Ukrainians investigated the Bidens, i.e., the difference between acting on behalf of US interests and on personal interests. They also explained that the prosecutor Biden had removed was not, in fact, investigating Burisma, and that replacing him would make Biden's son more, not less, likely to be held to scrutiny.
And the Democrats did an excellent job on explaining just how unprecedented and just how dangerous Trump's absolute stonewalling of the investigation was, and of appealing to Senate Republicans' institutional interests in maintaining oversight over the executive branch.
I did think there were some things the Democrats could have emphasized more. (Unless they did and it was cut out). I would have liked for them to have discussed just how common it is for retired politicians, family members of politicians, and other bigwigs to serve on corporate boards of directors and do almost nothing except be on the masthead. I would have liked them to point out that the practice, though perhaps sleazy, is perfectly legal and could be abolished only by telling corporations how to choose their directors, and are we sure we want to do that. I would have liked them to go into more detail about Trump's complete lack of interest in corruption in any country except Ukraine, and in any instance in Ukraine except Burisma. And I really wish they had commented on and played Fiona Hill's comments that Ukraine was by no means the only country whose leaders made unflattering comments about candidate Trump, yet none of the others were such targets of Trump's ire.
And, incidentally, I think the Democrats may have set a trap for themselves with a distinct contradiction. In insisting that Russia, not Ukraine "interfered" in the 2016 election, Democrats clearly set a high bar for "interference," i.e., hacking and disclosure. Yet in saying the Trump wanted Ukraine to "interfere" by announcing an investigation of the Bidens, they were setting a much lower bar. That is a distinct weakness for Republicans to exploit.
And I have a further comment on the "heads on pikes" comment that was cut out. Persuasive argument, we are told, is supposed to appeal at three levels -- logos, ethos, and pathos. Logos is an appeal with facts and logic. Ethos is a moral appeal to do the right thing. And pathos is an emotional appeal. The "heads on pikes" argument was largely an appeal to pathos, with some ethos put in. And in today's polarized atmosphere, that is hard to do.
When I say that Schiff was very "good," meaning concrete and specific, I basically mean he was very good at logos. Events, rules, precedents, comparisons, historical analogies and the like are logos. The core of a legal case is (supposed to be) based in logos. And particularly in these polarized times, logos sets up what we can at least hope to be a common core of facts beyond challenge.
Ethos is more difficult. I think Schiff and other Democrats made a fair start at it when they argued that all members of Congress, of both branches and both parties, will sometimes need documents from the executive branch, either for information in making legislative decisions, or to hold some President accountable. Arguing about keeping foreign powers from meddling in our domestic politics I think would strike some chords. But arguments about the need for elections to be fair and that seeking an investigation of the Bidens was "cheating" is unlikely to have the same appeal to Republicans as it does to Democrats and for an obvious reason. It is asking Republicans to make it easier for Democrats to win, not a very appealing argument!
But pathos is the hardest of all. Because being loyal to one's team and standing up for its leader is a very powerful piece of pathos for Republicans. And any attempt to excite passion is going to be an attempt to excite passion against Trump. And "heads on pikes" remark or not, that is going to meet with immense resistance.
All of which leads to one final point. Regardless of how good a case the Democrats made, it may well be swept away as soon as the Republicans start talking. Brett Kavenaugh is a classic example. First Christine Blasey Ford spoke up and her testimony was powerful -- at the level of logos, ethos, and pathos alike. People all across the political spectrum were impressed by her testimony, and it briefly appeared that it might have an impact. But as soon as Kavenaugh spoke up with his blatantly partisan rant, any possible impact was lost. Kavenaugh was appealing to pathos, and only to pathos --- in particular, to partisan passion. It was a very polarizing speech, inspiring enthusiasm by Republicans and outrage by Democrats. And, since Republicans were in the majority, it won the day.
I fully expect something similar from Donald Trumps lawyers.
I have been listening to condensed versions on Lawfare's Goat Rodeo in the belief that listening to or reading the whole thing. It has its drawbacks. In particular, it lacked the "heads on pikes" comments that excited such controversy. Still, there is enough to comment on, and I want to fully comment on what the Democrats had to say before moving on to the Republican side.
Actually, the trial began with debate between both sides about what the rules would be, so we got to hear from Team Trump, but not from either Starr or Dershowitz. Instead we heard from Jay Sekulow and Pat Cipollone. They weren't bad, exactly. Certainly, they refrained from Devin Nunes' substance-free ranting and open paranoia. But I found their arguments either too abstract to mean much, or somewhat disingenuous. In particular, they raised the example of Obama Attorney General Eric Holder, who was held in contempt for failure to produce documents and favorable cited various Democrats condemning the action. The cases are not comparable. Holder turned over some 7,600 pages of documents, but claimed executive privilege over another 1,300. Trump, by contrast, refused to turn over any documents whatever. Sekulow and Cipollone argued that investigators could go to court to order their release. House Managers argued that the documents could be held up in litigation for years, and that the Trump Administration was even arguing in another case that courts had no jurisdiction to hear such disputes.
Next came three days of the Democrats making their case. It was rather mind-numbing, but here are my comments:
First point, I didn't find it as riveting as the the witness testimony before the House. The witnesses were giving new information. House Managers were merely setting forth what the witnesses had already said. It got redundant fast.
Next point: Adam Schiff is very good. And by good, I mostly mean clear, concrete, and specific. That may say as much about my opinion as about any of the speakers, but there it is. In my view, the case is best made by avoiding generalities like "corrupt," or "cheat" or "foreign interference." Schiff was very good at explaining the particular acts that were done and what in particular was wrong with them. For instance, when various Democrats kept saying that Trump was trying to argue that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the election, Schiff clarified. By "interference," Trump did not mean hostile editorials or Facebook posts. He specifically asked the Ukrainians to find the Democratic server which was hacked.
Next: No one else, either the other Democrats or Sekulow or Cipollone was as good. In particular, Val Demings really needs to use less exclamation points. There was nothing really wrong with what she said, but I found the over-dramatic tone detracted from her content.
I did think the Democrats did a generally good job on debunking some of Team Trump's arguments. They pointed out in detail why Biden's threat to withhold aid unless the Ukrainians removed their prosecutor was not comparable to Trump threatening to withhold aid unless the Ukrainians investigated the Bidens, i.e., the difference between acting on behalf of US interests and on personal interests. They also explained that the prosecutor Biden had removed was not, in fact, investigating Burisma, and that replacing him would make Biden's son more, not less, likely to be held to scrutiny.
And the Democrats did an excellent job on explaining just how unprecedented and just how dangerous Trump's absolute stonewalling of the investigation was, and of appealing to Senate Republicans' institutional interests in maintaining oversight over the executive branch.
I did think there were some things the Democrats could have emphasized more. (Unless they did and it was cut out). I would have liked for them to have discussed just how common it is for retired politicians, family members of politicians, and other bigwigs to serve on corporate boards of directors and do almost nothing except be on the masthead. I would have liked them to point out that the practice, though perhaps sleazy, is perfectly legal and could be abolished only by telling corporations how to choose their directors, and are we sure we want to do that. I would have liked them to go into more detail about Trump's complete lack of interest in corruption in any country except Ukraine, and in any instance in Ukraine except Burisma. And I really wish they had commented on and played Fiona Hill's comments that Ukraine was by no means the only country whose leaders made unflattering comments about candidate Trump, yet none of the others were such targets of Trump's ire.
And, incidentally, I think the Democrats may have set a trap for themselves with a distinct contradiction. In insisting that Russia, not Ukraine "interfered" in the 2016 election, Democrats clearly set a high bar for "interference," i.e., hacking and disclosure. Yet in saying the Trump wanted Ukraine to "interfere" by announcing an investigation of the Bidens, they were setting a much lower bar. That is a distinct weakness for Republicans to exploit.
And I have a further comment on the "heads on pikes" comment that was cut out. Persuasive argument, we are told, is supposed to appeal at three levels -- logos, ethos, and pathos. Logos is an appeal with facts and logic. Ethos is a moral appeal to do the right thing. And pathos is an emotional appeal. The "heads on pikes" argument was largely an appeal to pathos, with some ethos put in. And in today's polarized atmosphere, that is hard to do.
When I say that Schiff was very "good," meaning concrete and specific, I basically mean he was very good at logos. Events, rules, precedents, comparisons, historical analogies and the like are logos. The core of a legal case is (supposed to be) based in logos. And particularly in these polarized times, logos sets up what we can at least hope to be a common core of facts beyond challenge.
Ethos is more difficult. I think Schiff and other Democrats made a fair start at it when they argued that all members of Congress, of both branches and both parties, will sometimes need documents from the executive branch, either for information in making legislative decisions, or to hold some President accountable. Arguing about keeping foreign powers from meddling in our domestic politics I think would strike some chords. But arguments about the need for elections to be fair and that seeking an investigation of the Bidens was "cheating" is unlikely to have the same appeal to Republicans as it does to Democrats and for an obvious reason. It is asking Republicans to make it easier for Democrats to win, not a very appealing argument!
But pathos is the hardest of all. Because being loyal to one's team and standing up for its leader is a very powerful piece of pathos for Republicans. And any attempt to excite passion is going to be an attempt to excite passion against Trump. And "heads on pikes" remark or not, that is going to meet with immense resistance.
All of which leads to one final point. Regardless of how good a case the Democrats made, it may well be swept away as soon as the Republicans start talking. Brett Kavenaugh is a classic example. First Christine Blasey Ford spoke up and her testimony was powerful -- at the level of logos, ethos, and pathos alike. People all across the political spectrum were impressed by her testimony, and it briefly appeared that it might have an impact. But as soon as Kavenaugh spoke up with his blatantly partisan rant, any possible impact was lost. Kavenaugh was appealing to pathos, and only to pathos --- in particular, to partisan passion. It was a very polarizing speech, inspiring enthusiasm by Republicans and outrage by Democrats. And, since Republicans were in the majority, it won the day.
I fully expect something similar from Donald Trumps lawyers.
Sunday, January 19, 2020
Two Contrasting Portraits of War in Shakespeare
I belong to a Shakespeare reading and discussion group and greatly regret not having the opportunity to attend both of the two most recent discussions -- Troilus and Cressida, and Henry V. They make a fascinating (and ironic) study in contrasts on the subject of war.
Troilus and Cressida is set during the Trojan War and borrows part of the plot of the Iliad. Despite the ancient setting, the play has a very strong feeling of the Middle Ages. This should not be surprising, since the story of Troilus and Cressida originates in the 14th Century. I interpret the play as mourning the end of Medieval chivalry in favor of modern notions of total war.
The Trojans embody the chivalric ideal.* The play opens with Troilus, staying home from battle, too lovesick to fight. Fighting is treated as a thing men do when the mood strikes them and not a matter of duty to protect Troy. Men wear a token from their lady and dedicate their heroic deeds in her honor. Hector is the truest embodiment of the ideal. During a truce, he challenges any Greek champion to duel in single combat, to show who is braver, and whose lady is more beautiful and of higher character. He spares all who yield, never strikes an opponent when he is down, and even gives pause to let the other fighter catch his breath.
Troilus is a young idealist in his model. He also follows the chivalric ideal in that he loves a lady, praises all her virtues and excellences, and wears her token, a sleeve. Paris also comes across as a very nice guy.
The Greeks are moving in the modern direction. Their army has been bogged down for a long time and they are growing impatient. Achilles has been refusing to fight and mocking the leaders. Ulysses (Odysseus) proposes that the Greeks send Ajax forward as their champion instead to goad Achilles into action. Certainly neither Achilles nor Ajax meets the ideal of chivalry at all. Ajax is described as a "mongrel, beef-witted lord" with "no more brain than I have in mine elbows," and he acts like a brute and thug. Achilles has fallen into arrogance, mocks his superiors, and almost certainly has a gay relationship with Patroclus. Nor does Ulysses' scheme to manipulate these two seem knightly.
But above all else is Thersites. Thersites appears as a character in the Illiad, a common soldier, deformed and repulsive, but he speaks the truth to power. Shakespeare's Thersites is even more repulsive, and supremely vile and scurrilous in his language, but he sees through everyone else's failings and speaks truth to power, albeit in repulsive, disease-ridden terms. His dismisses Achilles and Ajax with, "Hector have a great catch, if he knock out either of your brains: a' were as good crack a fusty nut with no kernel." And "If Troy be not taken till these two undermine it, the walls will stand till they fall of themselves." He dismisses the whole war with:
The Greeks observe the chivalric ideal of courtesy during the duel, but Ulysses has no illusions about Cressida's character and arranges for Troilus to see her transfer her allegiance to Diomedes and give him the sleeve. The shock causes Troilus to abandon chivalry for total war. He tells Hector:
Troilus and Cressida is a deeply cynical play, particularly because Thersites' cynical comments go unanswered, including his outrage that the war should be fought all over "a cuckold and a whore." We see Medieval chivalry give way to modern total war before our eyes. And yet the question remains, to what extent did Shakespeare actually believe in the chivalric ideal? Did he see it as a noble and glorious thing of the past, tragically lost in these modern, degenerate days? Or as a mere literary convention, never practicable in the real world? Someone in our class pointed out that Shakespeare was a contemporary of Miguel Cervantes, and that Troilus and Cressida was roughly contemporary with Don Quixote, which thoroughly skewered the knightly romance (already generally seen as old-fashioned and rather foolish) as utterly absurd in the real world.
While I cannot say what Shakespeare thought of this subject, I can say that he was not blind to the harsh realities of Medieval warfare. These are quite accurately presented in Shakespeare's great patriotic play, Henry V.
Both plays begin with a chorus setting the general story. In Troilus and Cressida, the chorus merely explains that the scene is in Troy and recounts the familiar story. In Henry V, the chorus describes the grandeur and epic scale of the story he wants to present, and apologizes for the limits of the stage. It seems fair to say that these things did not have the same reality to Shakespeare when writing about an ancient war in a distant and exotic land as when writing about a comparatively recent war in familiar lands. Troilus and Cressida had elements of a fairy tale; Henry V is absolutely real to the author and his audience.
There are no one-on-one duels in Henry V, no fights to prove the worthiness of one's lady, no lady's favor that a knight wears on his crest to dedicate to her. Two men (one of them the king in disguise) do were gloves on their hats, but only as a challenge to start a fight. The incident that is the immediate pretext for war is every bit as frivolous as stealing Helen. Henry claims to be the rightful King of France. The French offer him a chest containing tribute not to attack. And it turns out to contain -- tennis balls. This insult furnishes the immediate pretext for war.
The harsh realities of war are portrayed in unsparing terms. We hear about sieges, cannons, undermining (i.e., digging under the city walls to plan explosives) and other practical matters of war that go unmentioned in Troilus and Cressida. Henry warns the city of Harfleur against holding out after it becomes clear there are no reinforcements:
Harfleur surrenders. The English army, hungry and stricken with dysentery, makes a forced march to Calais. Henry warns his soldiers to commit no outrages against the countryside and executes one for looting from a church. They await fearfully for the coming battle. Common soldiers know all too well that theirs are the lives on the line when the fighting starts, while the nobility will only be captured, held in honorable confinement, and ransomed. Some common soldiers even dare grumble against the king:
In the battle itself we see no one-on-one duels between great lords, only a fight between common soldiers. At the end of the battle, all is in confusion and at first the English don't even know who won. They only realize they have won when the French herald approaches asking leave to retrieve their dead to bury. Horses have fallen as well as knights, "[T]heir wounded steeds/Fret fetlock deep in gore and with wild rage/Yerk out their armed heels at their dead masters/Killing them twice."
When the war is over, most of the companions of Henry's youth have been killed. Pistol, the sole survivor, finds that his girlfriend has died "of a malady of France." He is left to make his living pimping and stealing. He is scarred from a beating for insubordination, and plans to claim the scars were gotten in combat and pass himself off as a war hero. The French desperately desire peace:
So the obvious question remains. Why is it the chest-thumping, flag-waving patriotic play Henry V so much more graphic and honest in its portrayal of the horrors of war than the deeply cynical anti-war play Troilus and Cressida? Some have suggested that Shakespeare really disliked war, and that his dislike of war comes through even in a supposed celebration of it. Or that Henry V is only a patriotic play on the surface, and that it is far more critical of Henry and his wars than it appears at first glance. But the question remains -- why so much more a graphic portrayal of a war the author at least pretends to support than one he opposes. Not even Shakespeare's portrayal of civil war in his other history plays is so grim.
My guess is that two things are at work. One is that some of the horrors of war were deeply embedded in the popular narrative of Henry's victory. Victory is exciting in proportion to how much it overcomes the odds. Henry's victory at Agincourt gains its power, not only from the English being outnumbered by the French, but also by their weakened condition, from hunger, disease, and forced march. Just as we honor George Washington, not for the victorious battles he fought (he didn't), but for enduring cold, hunger, and disease and still holding his rag-tag barefoot army together, so would Shakespeare's contemporaries honor Henry for his victory over hunger, disease, and fatigue as well as an outnumbering army. And after all, these aspects of war should be remembered. Every war prior to the 20th Century had more soldiers die of disease from squalid conditions than were killed in battle.
The other is that sometimes imagination is just no match for reality. Even for a writer of Shakespeare's genius, details come a lot easier when you are writing about something you really know. Shakespeare knew the grim details of the Battle of Agincourt. Troilus and Cressida, Shakespeare was essentially writing about an imaginary war. The details just weren't there.
___________________________________________________
*West Europeans in the Middle Ages, and well after, knew their Greek legends mostly as filtered through the Romans. The Romans claimed descent from the Trojans and were therefore biased in their favor. This bias persisted in Shakespeare's time.
**Although, interestingly enough, the Iliad bombards the reader with so many graphic descriptions of death in battle that the mind goes numb to it.
The Trojans embody the chivalric ideal.* The play opens with Troilus, staying home from battle, too lovesick to fight. Fighting is treated as a thing men do when the mood strikes them and not a matter of duty to protect Troy. Men wear a token from their lady and dedicate their heroic deeds in her honor. Hector is the truest embodiment of the ideal. During a truce, he challenges any Greek champion to duel in single combat, to show who is braver, and whose lady is more beautiful and of higher character. He spares all who yield, never strikes an opponent when he is down, and even gives pause to let the other fighter catch his breath.
Troilus is a young idealist in his model. He also follows the chivalric ideal in that he loves a lady, praises all her virtues and excellences, and wears her token, a sleeve. Paris also comes across as a very nice guy.
The Greeks are moving in the modern direction. Their army has been bogged down for a long time and they are growing impatient. Achilles has been refusing to fight and mocking the leaders. Ulysses (Odysseus) proposes that the Greeks send Ajax forward as their champion instead to goad Achilles into action. Certainly neither Achilles nor Ajax meets the ideal of chivalry at all. Ajax is described as a "mongrel, beef-witted lord" with "no more brain than I have in mine elbows," and he acts like a brute and thug. Achilles has fallen into arrogance, mocks his superiors, and almost certainly has a gay relationship with Patroclus. Nor does Ulysses' scheme to manipulate these two seem knightly.
But above all else is Thersites. Thersites appears as a character in the Illiad, a common soldier, deformed and repulsive, but he speaks the truth to power. Shakespeare's Thersites is even more repulsive, and supremely vile and scurrilous in his language, but he sees through everyone else's failings and speaks truth to power, albeit in repulsive, disease-ridden terms. His dismisses Achilles and Ajax with, "Hector have a great catch, if he knock out either of your brains: a' were as good crack a fusty nut with no kernel." And "If Troy be not taken till these two undermine it, the walls will stand till they fall of themselves." He dismisses the whole war with:
Here is such patchery, such juggling and such knavery! all the argument is a cuckold and a whore; a good quarrel to draw emulous factions and bleed to death upon. Now, the dry serpigo [a skin disease] on the subject! and war and lechery confound all!In assessing his commanders he says:
Here's Agamemnon, an honest fellow enough and one that loves quails; but he has not so much brain as earwax: and the goodly transformation of Jupiter there, his brother, the bull,--the primitive statue, and oblique memorial of cuckolds; a thrifty shoeing-horn in a chain, hanging at his brother's leg,--to what form but that he is, should wit larded with malice and malice forced with wit turn him to? To an ass, were nothing; he is both ass and ox: to an ox, were nothing; he is both ox and ass. To be a dog, a mule, a cat, a fitchew, a toad, a lizard, an owl, a puttock, or a herring without a roe, I would not care; but to be Menelaus, I would conspire against destiny.And his curses are revolting:
Now, the rotten diseases of the south, the guts-griping, ruptures, catarrhs, loads o' gravel i' the back, lethargies, cold palsies, raw eyes, dirt-rotten livers, wheezing lungs, bladders full of imposthume, sciaticas, limekilns i' the palm, incurable bone-ache, and the rivelled fee-simple of the tetter, take and take again such preposterous discoveries!Even in Troy, one catches hints that chivalry is not all it seems. When Troilus proclaims his love for Cressida in extravagant terms, Cressida's uncle Pandarus interjects in the most prosaic and cynical terms. He brings them together and watches over, a leering voyeur.
The Greeks observe the chivalric ideal of courtesy during the duel, but Ulysses has no illusions about Cressida's character and arranges for Troilus to see her transfer her allegiance to Diomedes and give him the sleeve. The shock causes Troilus to abandon chivalry for total war. He tells Hector:
TROILUS
Brother, you have a vice of mercy in you,
Which better fits a lion than a man.
HECTOR
What vice is that, good Troilus? chide me for it.
TROILUS
When many times the captive Grecian falls,
Even in the fan and wind of your fair sword,
You bid them rise, and live.
HECTOR
O,'tis fair play.
TROILUS
Fool's play, by heaven, Hector.
HECTOR
How now! how now!
TROILUS
For the love of all the gods,
Let's leave the hermit pity with our mothers,
And when we have our armours buckled on,
The venom'd vengeance ride upon our swords,
Spur them to ruthful work, rein them from ruth.
HECTOR
Fie, savage, fie!
TROILUSHector is alarmed by his brother's tone and says he should not fight today, but Troilus goes out, hunting for Diomedes with Cressida's sleeve. Troilus' warning to disregard chivalry and fight to win proves true -- when Hector rests at the end of the day and takes his armor off, Achilles ambushes and kills him. And we end knowing that Troy is doomed without Hector to defend it and Troilus abandoning all chivalry and only craving revenge.
Hector, then 'tis wars.
Troilus and Cressida is a deeply cynical play, particularly because Thersites' cynical comments go unanswered, including his outrage that the war should be fought all over "a cuckold and a whore." We see Medieval chivalry give way to modern total war before our eyes. And yet the question remains, to what extent did Shakespeare actually believe in the chivalric ideal? Did he see it as a noble and glorious thing of the past, tragically lost in these modern, degenerate days? Or as a mere literary convention, never practicable in the real world? Someone in our class pointed out that Shakespeare was a contemporary of Miguel Cervantes, and that Troilus and Cressida was roughly contemporary with Don Quixote, which thoroughly skewered the knightly romance (already generally seen as old-fashioned and rather foolish) as utterly absurd in the real world.
Both plays begin with a chorus setting the general story. In Troilus and Cressida, the chorus merely explains that the scene is in Troy and recounts the familiar story. In Henry V, the chorus describes the grandeur and epic scale of the story he wants to present, and apologizes for the limits of the stage. It seems fair to say that these things did not have the same reality to Shakespeare when writing about an ancient war in a distant and exotic land as when writing about a comparatively recent war in familiar lands. Troilus and Cressida had elements of a fairy tale; Henry V is absolutely real to the author and his audience.
There are no one-on-one duels in Henry V, no fights to prove the worthiness of one's lady, no lady's favor that a knight wears on his crest to dedicate to her. Two men (one of them the king in disguise) do were gloves on their hats, but only as a challenge to start a fight. The incident that is the immediate pretext for war is every bit as frivolous as stealing Helen. Henry claims to be the rightful King of France. The French offer him a chest containing tribute not to attack. And it turns out to contain -- tennis balls. This insult furnishes the immediate pretext for war.
The harsh realities of war are portrayed in unsparing terms. We hear about sieges, cannons, undermining (i.e., digging under the city walls to plan explosives) and other practical matters of war that go unmentioned in Troilus and Cressida. Henry warns the city of Harfleur against holding out after it becomes clear there are no reinforcements:
Take pity of your town and of your people,Never do we hear such graphic terms when Troilus anticipates the fall of Troy.
Whiles yet my soldiers are in my command;
Whiles yet the cool and temperate wind of grace
O'erblows the filthy and contagious clouds
Of heady murder, spoil and villany.
If not, why, in a moment look to see
The blind and bloody soldier with foul hand
Defile the locks of your shrill-shrieking daughters;
Your fathers taken by the silver beards,
And their most reverend heads dash'd to the walls,
Your naked infants spitted upon pikes,
Whiles the mad mothers with their howls confused
Do break the clouds, as did the wives of Jewry
At Herod's bloody-hunting slaughtermen.
What say you? will you yield, and this avoid,
Or, guilty in defence, be thus destroy'd?
Harfleur surrenders. The English army, hungry and stricken with dysentery, makes a forced march to Calais. Henry warns his soldiers to commit no outrages against the countryside and executes one for looting from a church. They await fearfully for the coming battle. Common soldiers know all too well that theirs are the lives on the line when the fighting starts, while the nobility will only be captured, held in honorable confinement, and ransomed. Some common soldiers even dare grumble against the king:
But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place;' some swearing, some crying for a surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left. I am afeard there are few die well that die in a battle; for how can they charitably dispose of any thing, when blood is their argument? Now, if these men do not die well, it will be a black matter for the king that led them to it; whom to disobey were against all proportion of subjection.Again, this is quite graphic imagery. There is none of Thersites' vulgarity here, but it portrays the real horrors of death and wounds in a way that Troilus and Cressida never does.** The English, half-starved and exhausted from the march, face a French army that is fresh and outnumbers them five to one. The French urge the English to leave while they still can. Henry replies that even if his army is slaughtered, so many bodies will breed a plague and conquer France even in death! (Gross!) Battle ensues. Both sides commit war crimes. Henry orders the execution of French prisoners after they surrender. The French attack the baggage train and kill boys to young to fight. Henry does not even have the mitigation of killing in hot blood -- he first orders the execution of French prisoners before learning that under age boys have been killed.
In the battle itself we see no one-on-one duels between great lords, only a fight between common soldiers. At the end of the battle, all is in confusion and at first the English don't even know who won. They only realize they have won when the French herald approaches asking leave to retrieve their dead to bury. Horses have fallen as well as knights, "[T]heir wounded steeds/Fret fetlock deep in gore and with wild rage/Yerk out their armed heels at their dead masters/Killing them twice."
When the war is over, most of the companions of Henry's youth have been killed. Pistol, the sole survivor, finds that his girlfriend has died "of a malady of France." He is left to make his living pimping and stealing. He is scarred from a beating for insubordination, and plans to claim the scars were gotten in combat and pass himself off as a war hero. The French desperately desire peace:
Her [France's] vine, the merry cheerer of the heart,Peace is concluded, with the current French king to rule to the end of his days. His son is declared illegitimate, and Henry marries his daughter and is declared his heir. As the chorus acknowledges, it is all in vain. Henry will die young and leave a baby to succeed him. All his victories will be reversed and England will fall into civil war.
Unpruned dies; her hedges even-pleach'd,
Like prisoners wildly overgrown with hair,
Put forth disorder'd twigs; her fallow leas
The darnel, hemlock and rank fumitory
Doth root upon, while that the coulter rusts
That should deracinate such savagery;
The even mead, that erst brought sweetly forth
The freckled cowslip, burnet and green clover,
Wanting the scythe, all uncorrected, rank,
Conceives by idleness and nothing teems
But hateful docks, rough thistles, kecksies, burs,
Losing both beauty and utility.
And as our vineyards, fallows, meads and hedges,
Defective in their natures, grow to wildness,
Even so our houses and ourselves and children
Have lost, or do not learn for want of time,
The sciences that should become our country;
But grow like savages,--as soldiers will
That nothing do but meditate on blood,--
To swearing and stern looks, diffused attire
And every thing that seems unnatural.
Which to reduce into our former favour
You are assembled: and my speech entreats
That I may know the let, why gentle Peace
Should not expel these inconveniences
And bless us with her former qualities.
So the obvious question remains. Why is it the chest-thumping, flag-waving patriotic play Henry V so much more graphic and honest in its portrayal of the horrors of war than the deeply cynical anti-war play Troilus and Cressida? Some have suggested that Shakespeare really disliked war, and that his dislike of war comes through even in a supposed celebration of it. Or that Henry V is only a patriotic play on the surface, and that it is far more critical of Henry and his wars than it appears at first glance. But the question remains -- why so much more a graphic portrayal of a war the author at least pretends to support than one he opposes. Not even Shakespeare's portrayal of civil war in his other history plays is so grim.
My guess is that two things are at work. One is that some of the horrors of war were deeply embedded in the popular narrative of Henry's victory. Victory is exciting in proportion to how much it overcomes the odds. Henry's victory at Agincourt gains its power, not only from the English being outnumbered by the French, but also by their weakened condition, from hunger, disease, and forced march. Just as we honor George Washington, not for the victorious battles he fought (he didn't), but for enduring cold, hunger, and disease and still holding his rag-tag barefoot army together, so would Shakespeare's contemporaries honor Henry for his victory over hunger, disease, and fatigue as well as an outnumbering army. And after all, these aspects of war should be remembered. Every war prior to the 20th Century had more soldiers die of disease from squalid conditions than were killed in battle.
The other is that sometimes imagination is just no match for reality. Even for a writer of Shakespeare's genius, details come a lot easier when you are writing about something you really know. Shakespeare knew the grim details of the Battle of Agincourt. Troilus and Cressida, Shakespeare was essentially writing about an imaginary war. The details just weren't there.
___________________________________________________
*West Europeans in the Middle Ages, and well after, knew their Greek legends mostly as filtered through the Romans. The Romans claimed descent from the Trojans and were therefore biased in their favor. This bias persisted in Shakespeare's time.
**Although, interestingly enough, the Iliad bombards the reader with so many graphic descriptions of death in battle that the mind goes numb to it.
What Is It With Right-Wing Men and Beards?
Are beards making a comeback? I seem to be seeing a lot of them on prominent men, especially among right wing men.
Ted Cruz has grown a beard.
A vast improvement in his looks, by the way, but probably anything to cover any part of his face would help.
Donald Trump, Jr. has grown a beard.
Eric Trump has grown a beard.
Jerry Falwell, Jr. has a beard
No picture of Falwell, Jr. without a beard, so maybe this is not new. His father never had a beard.
Even Alex Jones has grown a beard.
His appearance, however, cannot be salvaged, even with a beard covering part of his face. Still, I think there is some improvement.
So what is going on here? Is there some change in fashion underway I don't know about. And why have only right-wingers gotten the memo?
Ted Cruz has grown a beard.
 |
| Ted Cruz without beard |
 |
| Ted Cruz with beard |
Donald Trump, Jr. has grown a beard.
 |
| Donald Trump, jr. without beard |
 |
| Donald Trump, Jr. with beard |
Eric Trump has grown a beard.
 |
| Eric Trump without beard |
 |
| Eric Trump with beard |
Jerry Falwell, Jr. has a beard
 |
| Jerry Falwell, Jr. |
 |
| Jerry Falwell, Sr. |
No picture of Falwell, Jr. without a beard, so maybe this is not new. His father never had a beard.
Even Alex Jones has grown a beard.
 |
| Alex Jones without beard |
 |
| Alex Jones with beard |
His appearance, however, cannot be salvaged, even with a beard covering part of his face. Still, I think there is some improvement.
So what is going on here? Is there some change in fashion underway I don't know about. And why have only right-wingers gotten the memo?
More on Lev Parnas
Look, I get that everything Lev Parnas says should be taken with a substantial quantity of salt. His unsupported word should never be accepted. Instead, we should insist on corroboration of all his claims.
And some we have. We have corroboration that Rudy Giuliani made clear he was acting as Donald Trump's personal lawyer and not in any official capacity, in the form of a letter from Giuliani saying so. We have corroboration that the impetus for firing Marie Yovanovitch came from Ukrainian Prosecutor General Victor Shokin and not from Giuliani or his associates, in the form of texts from Shokin saying so. We have texts corroborating that Parnas was in regular contact with Devin Nunes' aid, which raises at least a reasonable inference that Nunes knew what was going on and just wanted to preserve plausible deniability. And we have texts corroborating Parnas associates at least claiming that they were stalking Yovanovitch. The parties claim they were joking and/or led on by the other. No doubt further investigation will shed some light on this.
On the other hand, what Parnas says about contacts with Ukrainian oligarch Dmytro Firtash, or the alleged role of Mike Pence or William Barr should await confirmation before we believe him.
But I whole-heartedly believe at least part of this Daily Beast article. Not so much the specific allegations about back door diplomacy in Venzuela,* or attempts to protect Firtash from extradition, or any other specific conspiracy. Those, by all means, should be treated as subjects for further investigation, but not to be believed without corroboration. But what I do believe is the general paranoid among Giuliani and his associates:
Congressional Republicans (with the possible exception of Devin Nunes) know better, but they don't dare contradict the big guy, so we hear a lot about Ukrainian interference really just consisting of a hostile op-ed and stories about payoffs to Manafort. That is an attempt to avoid offending the base by not contradicting Trump but also not to sound too ridiculous to the general public by not spouting insane conspiracy theories.
So which are worse, Republicans who are lying (or at least letting lies stand) to fool the gullible rubes, or ones who actually believe that. Which is worse, to be such a knave, or such a fool. And in the end, I would say I prefer the ones who are knowingly lying. At least they can be rational if it is in their best interest.
_________________________________
*Probably a good idea, actually.
**Who turns 90 this year. I am genuinely curious to see what these guys come up with when Soros dies.
***Actually, there is a third category of Republicans who haven't come down firmly in either camp. Willian Barr is one such example. While he seems to accept the findings of the Mueller report that there was large-scale Russian interference in the election, he also appears to believe that the decision to investigate the Trump campaign at all was sinister.
And some we have. We have corroboration that Rudy Giuliani made clear he was acting as Donald Trump's personal lawyer and not in any official capacity, in the form of a letter from Giuliani saying so. We have corroboration that the impetus for firing Marie Yovanovitch came from Ukrainian Prosecutor General Victor Shokin and not from Giuliani or his associates, in the form of texts from Shokin saying so. We have texts corroborating that Parnas was in regular contact with Devin Nunes' aid, which raises at least a reasonable inference that Nunes knew what was going on and just wanted to preserve plausible deniability. And we have texts corroborating Parnas associates at least claiming that they were stalking Yovanovitch. The parties claim they were joking and/or led on by the other. No doubt further investigation will shed some light on this.
On the other hand, what Parnas says about contacts with Ukrainian oligarch Dmytro Firtash, or the alleged role of Mike Pence or William Barr should await confirmation before we believe him.
But I whole-heartedly believe at least part of this Daily Beast article. Not so much the specific allegations about back door diplomacy in Venzuela,* or attempts to protect Firtash from extradition, or any other specific conspiracy. Those, by all means, should be treated as subjects for further investigation, but not to be believed without corroboration. But what I do believe is the general paranoid among Giuliani and his associates:
[Parnas] said they also angled to get Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to force at least two people out of his own orbit: former journalist Serhiy Leshchenko and then-national security adviser Oleksandr Danylyuk. The reason? In Parnas’ words, they were “Soros people.”. . . . . . . . .
“Soros became Enemy Number One, and it was understood that Soros infiltrated the U.S. government and State Department over a certain period of time,” Parnas said.
“He employed different prosecutors in different states, different congressmen, and the biggest thing was they thought Victoria Nuland was his person in the State Department and then let him control Eastern Europe by naming ambassadors and stuff, and then opened up this anti-corruption-type of system to cover up, actually, his corruption. That’s what we were running with.”. . . . . . . . .
“The consensus was that the reason Trump had the Russiagate and everything that was happening was because Soros and the Democrats controlled certain U.S. embassies in Eastern Europe, particularly the Ukrainian one, and were able to help with the Manafort stuff and all other kinds of stuff that basically caused problems in the Trump World,” he said. . . . In retrospect, Parnas said, the Soros focus grew out of an atmosphere he described as cult-like.We have ample verification of this based on public statements made by Team Giuliani and others. Go ahead and read the thread. Short version: everyone and everything who opposes Trump is part of a vast conspiracy orchestrated by George Soros.** The author of the thread ends by saying:
Republicans have basically pulled off a major con to get it covered as "a Ukrainian ambassador wrote a critical op-ed" and "Biden got the prosecutor general fired while his son worked for Burisma."That last is maybe about half-true. It seems fair to say that Republicans can be divided into two groups -- ones who believe all this, and ones who don't.*** The significant part of the Daily Beast article is that Team Giuliani is part of the former group. When they say this stuff on Fox, they aren't just telling lies to fool the gullible rubes, they actually believe it themselves. There was ample evidence of that to begin with; the article merely confirms it. Sean Hannity at least appears to believe it. Another who believes it is Donald Trump himself.
Congressional Republicans (with the possible exception of Devin Nunes) know better, but they don't dare contradict the big guy, so we hear a lot about Ukrainian interference really just consisting of a hostile op-ed and stories about payoffs to Manafort. That is an attempt to avoid offending the base by not contradicting Trump but also not to sound too ridiculous to the general public by not spouting insane conspiracy theories.
So which are worse, Republicans who are lying (or at least letting lies stand) to fool the gullible rubes, or ones who actually believe that. Which is worse, to be such a knave, or such a fool. And in the end, I would say I prefer the ones who are knowingly lying. At least they can be rational if it is in their best interest.
_________________________________
*Probably a good idea, actually.
**Who turns 90 this year. I am genuinely curious to see what these guys come up with when Soros dies.
***Actually, there is a third category of Republicans who haven't come down firmly in either camp. Willian Barr is one such example. While he seems to accept the findings of the Mueller report that there was large-scale Russian interference in the election, he also appears to believe that the decision to investigate the Trump campaign at all was sinister.
Saturday, January 18, 2020
On Congress
I don't recall when I first became aware of The Broken Branch by Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann. The book laments how Congress has transformed over the years. Power has been centralized from committees into the leadership. Rank-and-file members do much less work than in the past, sometimes spending only three days a week in Washington.
Justin Amash has echoed the complaint, saying "On ordinary legislative matters, most members of Congress don’t think anymore. They just follow whatever they’re told by their leadership."
I found this most interesting and a bit nostalgic. You see, I went to college during the heyday of Congressional decentralization. And wouldn't you know, in my political science class we had a book from leading political scientists of the day lamenting the fragmentation of power in Congress and its decentralization, first from the leadership to the committees, and now to the sub-committees, and even individual members. Lobbyists were quoted complaining that they could no longer rely on appeals to party loyalty, but had to persuade members on the merits, with high-quality materials. And members of Congress worked grueling hours and looked back longingly, not just to the early days of the Republic when Congress was not even in session most of the year, but as recently as the 1950's when hours were at least manageable.
Our professor spoke approvingly of when Congress was ruled by "whales" and all the little "minnows" swam where they were directed. His heroes were Sam Rayburn (speaker of the House) and Lyndon B. Johnson (as Senate Majority Leader). He spoke with admiration of "the Johnson treatment" with which Johnson browbeat holdouts into submission.
And I will say it makes sense that it makes sense that if decision making is centralized in the leadership, there is less for the rank-and-file to do; while if decision making is decentralized, the rank-and-file will have to work a lot harder. As for the rest, Sam Rayburn and Lyndon B. Johnson were before my time, but they would be impressive indeed if they could hold their caucuses together as well as Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell.* Once again, "whales" rule and "minnows" swim where they are told.
Which way is better? I really don't know enough about Congress in the days of Rayburn and Johnson to say. Certainly my instincts are for decentralization. Ornstein and Mann warn that when the leadership crafts bills without proper hearing by committee, the quality of legislation suffers. I can't say how that worked out in the Rayburn/Johnson days. But of this I am confident. Congress was less rigidly partisan then than it is now. Cooperation with a President of the opposing party (or oversight of a President of one's own party) had not become unthinkable. Whatever the case then, today centralization is simply a symptom of partisanship.
____________________________________________
*Other Speakers of the House, such as John Boehner and Paul Ryan have been notably less effective.
Justin Amash has echoed the complaint, saying "On ordinary legislative matters, most members of Congress don’t think anymore. They just follow whatever they’re told by their leadership."
I found this most interesting and a bit nostalgic. You see, I went to college during the heyday of Congressional decentralization. And wouldn't you know, in my political science class we had a book from leading political scientists of the day lamenting the fragmentation of power in Congress and its decentralization, first from the leadership to the committees, and now to the sub-committees, and even individual members. Lobbyists were quoted complaining that they could no longer rely on appeals to party loyalty, but had to persuade members on the merits, with high-quality materials. And members of Congress worked grueling hours and looked back longingly, not just to the early days of the Republic when Congress was not even in session most of the year, but as recently as the 1950's when hours were at least manageable.
Our professor spoke approvingly of when Congress was ruled by "whales" and all the little "minnows" swam where they were directed. His heroes were Sam Rayburn (speaker of the House) and Lyndon B. Johnson (as Senate Majority Leader). He spoke with admiration of "the Johnson treatment" with which Johnson browbeat holdouts into submission.
And I will say it makes sense that it makes sense that if decision making is centralized in the leadership, there is less for the rank-and-file to do; while if decision making is decentralized, the rank-and-file will have to work a lot harder. As for the rest, Sam Rayburn and Lyndon B. Johnson were before my time, but they would be impressive indeed if they could hold their caucuses together as well as Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell.* Once again, "whales" rule and "minnows" swim where they are told.
Which way is better? I really don't know enough about Congress in the days of Rayburn and Johnson to say. Certainly my instincts are for decentralization. Ornstein and Mann warn that when the leadership crafts bills without proper hearing by committee, the quality of legislation suffers. I can't say how that worked out in the Rayburn/Johnson days. But of this I am confident. Congress was less rigidly partisan then than it is now. Cooperation with a President of the opposing party (or oversight of a President of one's own party) had not become unthinkable. Whatever the case then, today centralization is simply a symptom of partisanship.
____________________________________________
*Other Speakers of the House, such as John Boehner and Paul Ryan have been notably less effective.
How Republicans in Congress Reign in Trump
Everyone take for granted that Republicans will unanimously vote to acquit when the Trump impeachment comes before them.
But at least three Republican Senators have expressed support for a War Powers Resolution to forbid a war with Iran without approval from Congress, and others may join.
And it has been pointed out by astute observers such as Ross Douthat (it will take forever for me to find) that this is by no means unique.
Douthat has pointed out that Republican Senators have occasionally defied Trump on matters of personnel. Although the Republican Senate has spared Trump the public humiliation of rejecting one of his nominees, they have been known to discretely let it be known that certain nominees will not pass and allowed Trump to quietly withdraw them. Senate Republicans rejected both Stephen Moore and Herman Cain as clearly unqualified to serve on the Federal Reserve. They have also rejected Ken Cuccinelli as Director of the US Citizenship and Immigration Service, although Trump has evaded that by appointing him Acting Director. And there is a reason that Michael Flynn and John Bolton served as National Security Adviser -- the job does not require Senate confirmation, and both men were considered unconfirmable.
Republicans in Congress have also quietly thwarted Trump on matters of policy. They never did build his wall, for instance. And, after a disastrous failed attempt to repeal Obamacare, they have shown no interest in reviving the subject, for all their leader's urging.
The reason for this (Douthat and others have pointed out), is that personnel and policy are secondary matters to Trump. Where Republicans in Congress have never defied Trump is in any attempt to hold him personally accountable for countless acts of corruption, because they know that is what Trump really cares about.
In effect, Trump and Congressional Republicans have an unspoken bargain in place -- he supports Republican priorities and picks Federalist Society judges in exchange for looking the other way on personal corruption. That is the essence of a corrupt quid pro quo.
But at least three Republican Senators have expressed support for a War Powers Resolution to forbid a war with Iran without approval from Congress, and others may join.
And it has been pointed out by astute observers such as Ross Douthat (it will take forever for me to find) that this is by no means unique.
Douthat has pointed out that Republican Senators have occasionally defied Trump on matters of personnel. Although the Republican Senate has spared Trump the public humiliation of rejecting one of his nominees, they have been known to discretely let it be known that certain nominees will not pass and allowed Trump to quietly withdraw them. Senate Republicans rejected both Stephen Moore and Herman Cain as clearly unqualified to serve on the Federal Reserve. They have also rejected Ken Cuccinelli as Director of the US Citizenship and Immigration Service, although Trump has evaded that by appointing him Acting Director. And there is a reason that Michael Flynn and John Bolton served as National Security Adviser -- the job does not require Senate confirmation, and both men were considered unconfirmable.
Republicans in Congress have also quietly thwarted Trump on matters of policy. They never did build his wall, for instance. And, after a disastrous failed attempt to repeal Obamacare, they have shown no interest in reviving the subject, for all their leader's urging.
The reason for this (Douthat and others have pointed out), is that personnel and policy are secondary matters to Trump. Where Republicans in Congress have never defied Trump is in any attempt to hold him personally accountable for countless acts of corruption, because they know that is what Trump really cares about.
In effect, Trump and Congressional Republicans have an unspoken bargain in place -- he supports Republican priorities and picks Federalist Society judges in exchange for looking the other way on personal corruption. That is the essence of a corrupt quid pro quo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)