I’m Supposed to Care about Charlie Rangel’s Censure, as if It Were Some Sort of Paradigmatic American Sorrow, when People Are Dying in Combat in Afghanistan?

05 December 2010

A lack of sensible perspective seems to characterize virtually everybody associated with federal politics

Representative Charlie Rangel was censured for ethical lapses by the House last week. A number of television pundits and newspaper columnists were saddened by the allegedly likeable Rangel’s fall from the (currently non-existent) grace that even uncensured politicians hold.

David Broder’s column is representative:

For 40 years or more, half his life, Rangel has been a force in the House by dint of an irrepressible personality that conveys a keen intelligence, street smarts and a wonderful, self-mocking sense of humor. To see him brought low is nothing but painful.

I don’t question that Rangel is likable, even refreshing. But get real. Here’s a guy who let his perks go to his head and stepped over the laughably permissive line that the House pretends to impose on its members.

The fact that Rangel didn’t take his censure with humble grace makes the various pundits’ regret over his wrist-slapping particularly silly:

At a moment when previous censured legislators had cried, resigned or passed out, Rangel ambled to the lectern on the floor of the House and delivered a proud speech.

"In my heart, I truly feel good," he said.

Congress has long relied on shame to enforce its norms: rule-breaking members were driven out not by force, but by their own consciences and their embarrassed constituents.

But now - whether the reason is hyper-partisanship, or a fragmented society, or the fact that weeping looks terrible on television - shame seems to be losing its grip. Instead, legislators have learned to bully their way through scandal, ignoring their humiliation instead of accepting it.

Admittedly, Charlie Rangel was punished (if it can be called that) for doing what other members of Congress do all the time.

To be sure, Rangel deserved punishment for his wrongs, which included failing to pay taxes on his Dominican beach home and improperly using his office for charitable fundraising. But in the 30 minutes allotted to him for his defense on the House floor Thursday evening, Rangel and his friends made a compelling case that he was being punished for doing things that lawmakers do routinely.

But Rangel got to the point of censure by his aggressively obtuse handling of the matter.

Perspective provided by Afghanistan’s bullets and lurking bombs

Every day, American military people are subject to combat and accidents in Afghanistan and Iraq. They get no perks. They die. They suffer.

They do their jobs in death’s face.

In contrast, Range is one of many powerful representatives of toilet government. There is no Shakespearean aspect to his de facto non-punishment. Nor to his being singled out after a mistaken display of pig-headed political tactics.

Appropriate perspective balances Honor and non-Honor. The latter deserves no respect and no attention, except as a motivational example inspiring the former.

What the Rangel example actually stands for

Don’t talk to me about Rangel. Except as an example of the facts that (i) power corrupts and (ii) Washington’s attention is almost always on the wrong things.

PeteFree.com

I’m Supposed to Care about Charlie Rangel’s Censure, as if It Were Some Sort of Paradigmatic American Sorrow, when People Are Dying in Combat in Afghanistan?