Context
A NYT opinion (not paywalled), The Pardon That Represents the New Era of Corruption, by two former federal corruption prosecutors discusses a example of blatant moral rot related to a Trump pardon of a sleazy political criminal. Both political parties are complicit in the moral rot. This example is representative of a much broader gaping wound on our democracy. Deep moral rot that has set in on our two-party system. At present, it is very likely not reasonably repairable.
Last week, Trump issued another pardon that is corrodes the rule of law. Trump pardoned Representative Henry Cuellar, a Texas Democrat. He was awaiting trial on well-documented federal bribery charges. This pardon was brazen. Trump publicly acknowledged that he had issued it to induce Cuellar to switch parties, and attacked him for a “lack of LOYALTY” when he didn't.
Instead of criticizing or staying silent, House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries welcomed and justified Trump's unwelcome, unjustifiable pardon. Jeffries pandered to maintain Cuellar’s party loyalty. He attacked the legitimacy of a very legitimate criminal case. Jeffries publicly dismissed the not at all thin federal indictment against Cuellar as “very thin.”
What about the Democratic Party?
The deep moral rot of Trump and his MAGA elites is very well documented and no longer rationally disputed. It is still irrationally disputed, as things in politics often are, but that major concern is off topic.
The question is why did Jeffries, a Democrat, praise Trump's clearly morally rotted pardon? Exactly who is this guy? Well, he was put in power by Democratic party elites, especially by the morally challenged Nancy Pelosi.** therefore, Jeffries can be therefore be seen as representative of Democratic Party leadership morality or lack thereof.
** As some may recall, Pelosi had a hard time figuring out why insider trading by members of congress, their families and some others should be made illegal like it is for everyone else. At least for some of us, the arrogance and condescension in her moral cluelessness was insulting and breathtaking.
If one looks, one finds that Jeffries has a long, troubled moral track record, to say the least. His competence in terms of democracy, the rule of law and civil liberties is weak. Arguably, that reflects the inherent moral incompatibility of democracy and the rule of law with post Citizens United corruption of politics (also a major, but off topic concern).
For example, 1992, as a 21-year-old college student, Jeffries wrote an editorial defending his uncle, Leonard Jeffries. Leonard was a Black studies professor who had made virulently antisemitic statements claiming "Russian Jewry had a particular control over the movies" and comparing Jews to "dogs" and "skunks". Jeffries has lied about this and been found to be a liar.
Also, some credible critics have criticized Jeffries' timid strategy and risk-averse politics. They plausibly argue he fails to be the leader for the party needs because it is basically operating without effective political leadership. Old Democratic Party dinosaurs like Schumer and Clyburn are feckless and worthless as party leaders. Jeffries has turned out to be corrupt, but no better than the old dinosaurs.
In short, Jeffries' decision-making on key issues like the Cuellar pardon is solid evidence of poor judgment. His defense of Trump's Cuellar pardon is an inexcusable moral failure that legitimizes corruption for narrow political gain. He is driven by short-term political calculations over moral principle and vigorous defense of democracy and the rule of law.
Are moral rectitude and holding power in American national politics currently mutually exclusive?
Under current post Citizens United politics, it now appears that moral rectitude in both parties are mostly to completely incompatible with gaining and holding power. The 2010 Citizens United USSC decision opened the floodgates to unlimited amounts of special interest money in and corruption of politics. That money has now almost completely subdued and neutered pro-democracy and pro-public interest morality in politics. Money and power talk, while everything else walks.
In the 2024 election cycle alone, over $1 billion in "dark money", which is undisclosed donor spending, flooded elections. Billionaire spending multiplied by a factor of 163 since Citizens United. Over 80% of billionaire spending now flows through channels that were illegal before 2010. Some scholars describe the situation as "dependence corruption", which is politicians' dependence on private campaign finance that leads to democratic erosion. Even without explicit any quid pro quo bribery, this is systemic corruption that courts refuse to recognize as legally actionable.
One expert on corruption in politics, Sarah Chayes, commented that Democrats have jumped into the corruption with both feet, and now neither party can credibly defend democratic norms. Both are captured by the same donor class. Public opinion mirrors Chayes' assertion. Over 80% of Americans believe the federal government is pretty much run by a few big interests looking out for themselves, and not for all the people or the public interest. Research shows these public perceptions of corruption are accurate, not mistaken.
Points to consider
So did Jeffries had no choice but to pander to Cuellar to keep him in the party? But even if Cuellar did not turn into a Republican and still got re-elected despite his corruption, how does that help democracy or the rule of law? Cuellar would still be an immoral crook. This is evidence of just how broken our morally rotted, special interest money corrupted two-party system is. Apparently, Democratic Party leadership feels forced to pander to criminals. Even if the GOP is significantly worse that the Democratic Party the moral rot is deep with both.
No comments:
Post a Comment