Short-term memory

Occasionally when I read the news I come across something which reminds me that principles in politics are rarely to be taken seriously: governance is more often about accumulating power than ensuring the rule of law. Rarely is this more blatant than this story from the New York Times.

Normally I would shrug this kind of thing off as the usual partisan bickering and conservatives complaining that they haven't yet become Masters of the Universe. But is there no one who can remember as far back as 2004?! Because as usual, Republicans are either too stupid or simply don't care. Let's reminisce together...

It's post-election, 2004. The right wing is on a serious power trip after re-electing Bush, expanding their majority in the legislative branch, and seeming on the brink of swaying the judicial. All that remains is for the emboldened commander-in-chief to appoint lots of conservative justices, and the ever-present dream of a single-party country will finally become reality.

But wait! The democratic minority in the Senate just won't die! Instead, they begin blocking Bush's judicial appointments with the power of the filibuster, which requires a larger majority to override. A principled politician might concede that political opposition is healthy in the long run and that the use of the filibuster has been respected and valued for 200 years. On the other hand, what will the GOP's response be? Of course: just change the Constitution!

So out came all the headlines about forcing "up-or-down votes" and "the nuclear option," remember those? If you really weren't paying attention, here's an article to prove I'm not lying, and that Republicans really did try to force their agenda by taking the Constitution hostage, putting a gun to its head, and demanding the confirmation of justices as ransom. I honestly don't remember how many of the nominees eventually were confirmed, but at least we were spared a nuclear attack on the Constitution (does that count as negotiating with terrorists?).

And now, here we are in late 2007 and, well, things have changed. Actually, the only thing that has changed is that Republicans no longer control the Senate. One might hope that Republicans would allow Democrats the same leverage that they enforced when they were in the majority, or at least disguise their actions to avoid exposing their double-standard, but that would only be necessary in the rare case of voter intelligence. Where have the up-or-down votes gone? How did the filibuster magically rise from disgrace to be used a record levels? Frankly, if I was the filibuster, I'd be pretty pissed off.

In 2004, the Democrats used the filibuster to put the brakes on a radical agenda and were demonised for it. In 2007, because they have the backing of the President, Republicans are quite literally ruling from the minority. Whether voters will call them on this in 2008 is anyone's guess.

I am always on the lookout for real, substantial differences between political parties, beyond the caricatures (Republicans are cold-hearted bastards, Democrats are wimps). In this case I don't think the contrast could be more clear: both parties whine when they don't get their way, but only one is prepared to sacrifice the common good and the rule of law for the sake of eliminating opposition. I certainly hope that people of conscience in both parties recommit to abiding by the principles of the Constitution and moral behaviour in general; but until Republicans show some glimmer of revival, I can say with confidence where my votes are going...