Political Payback

Dear District 18 Voter,

Look, we tried. Heaven knows we tried. But we just couldn’t get her to sit down and shut up. Her independence can no longer be tolerated or trusted. It’s causing chaos with the caucus conga line. Sincerely, House Majority Leadership.

P.S. Look for a more manageable candidate coming soon to a primary near you.

It’s a buyers market for blame shifting. While some diplomatically refer to the practice as reframing the debate, a more appropriate term would be avoiding the truth. Especially when it comes to being trustworthy.

After three decades, Mark Felt, a former FBI assistant director admitted being the anonymous Watergate source known as “Deep Throat”. Felt’s clandestine tips to a pair of Washington Post reporters fed public awareness of the Nixon Administration’s role in the infamous break-in. Watergate quickly became one of the most far reaching political scandals in history.

Felt, who was immortalized in “All the Presidents Men” as the shadowy figure in the parking garage who encourages Redford and Hoffman to “follow the money”, touched off a fierce debate: Was Felt a traitor, or was he a hero?

Pat Buchanan, a former Nixon speechwriter called Felt a “snake”. Columnist Anne Coulter blamed Felt for the election of Jimmy Carter. But even with all the partisan chatter, there is no denying that Felt was successful in exposing Watergate to a nation not yet served by 24-hour news channels and Internet bloggers.

Thirty years later, as public scrutiny lifts its head up to look back on the scandal that brought down a President, partisans are frantically reframing the discussion. Instead of debating the lessons learned from Watergate -like the abuse of power and the importance of open government- we’re debating Felt’s credibility. The old shoot the messenger strategy.

Today’s debates about political character and trustworthiness are viewed increasingly through partisan lenses. An environment where drive by shoutings are encouraged, so long as they’re devoid of any facts or credible content. Thanks for phoning in about disingenuous liberals, Sarge; if in fact that is your real name.

Days after Felt emerged from the past; Republican Representative Nancy Dahlstrom was banished by the same political strategy. In what should have been a discussion about trust and priorities, was framed as respecting procedure.

Members of the Majority are required to sign a caucus pledge. You agree to support the speaker, which means voting for all procedural motions and you agree to support the final budget. Rep. Dahlstrom’s pledge became a liability when push came to vote. Faced with spending money she believed broke a promise to her constituents, she parted ways on the budget vote. The House Leadership issued her exit visa last week.

However, the risks assumed by signing the pledge are many. Procedural votes have a history of sometimes being arbitrary. When an amendment or motion is made that has uncomfortable political consequences, the action is conveniently labeled a procedural vote that immediately seals its failure. Two years ago, Rep. Bob Lynn was questionably punished for his vote to reconsider the governor’s veto of the longevity bonus program. Fearing the motion would pass, the vote was called procedural. Even though it was the legislature’s first and only opportunity to respond to the governor’s mid-summer veto.

The budget pledge is risky too. Budget caps are set before sub-committees take the first word of testimony. Budget compromises and vote buying are done in private settings by a few. With the exception of only a handful, caucus members have very little say in what comprises the final budget product.

After a week of pundits dissecting Mark Felt’s trustworthiness, House Speaker John Harris took a similar path when he questioned Rep. Dahlstrom’s trustworthiness. “The problem we have now is can we trust her,” he asked in the Juneau Empire.

In both cases, trust appears to be euphemistic for “will you sit down and shut up already.”