Redstate

By smagar Posted in Archived — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

We can no longer count on getting qualified people to fill the key positions in Washington.

As we gear up to fight the 2008 election battles,we need arguments that will resonate with the American electorate. I propose this one:

Democrats want to put more and more of our nation's future in the hands of a centralized federal government. ANY organization rises and falls on the quality of the people in it.

Unfortunately, the current environment in Washington repels good people. Given that, how can we expect sustained, quality work out of a Washington-driven national government apparatus?

Read on...

(Hat tip to Pejman and the WSJ)

Anatomy of a Beltway Smear Campaign
By HANS A. VON SPAKOVSKY
May 20, 2008; Page A23

During the past two years, while my nomination to the Federal Election Commission was pending – and before I withdrew last week – friends would call whenever the latest newspaper story or blog post attacking me was planted by political operatives and left-wing advocacy organizations.

...

In 17 years of practicing law I'd never been accused of ethical or professional lapses. Since my arrival in Washington, however, I've been called corrupt and unethical, and labeled as everything from a Klansman to a Nazi (my last name seems to generate that latter pejorative) for my work at the Department of Justice

Imagine you are considering leaving a successful private sector career to devote some time to public service. You want to give back to the country that's given you so much.

Here are the things you need to fear:

1) Your reputation will be trashed.
2) You'll risk financial ruin.

This second threat is so great, it has to be broken into two parts:

Part A: lawyer's fees.

At some point in your public career, you should expect that the opposing political party will control at least one chamber of Congress. With control comes the right to investigate---more precisely, to subpoena, and compel testimony under oath, and put people at risk of perjury and other felony charges.

Would you, a known Republican, want to go in front of Henry Waxman's committee to testify without top-notch legal help? Is that legal help cheap?

But, you might protest, what if I don't set out to take tough political stands? What if I'm willing to sit at my desk, quietly do my job, go with the "flow" and not openly make waves or object to the prevailing ideology in my office?

Sometimes, that doesn't matter.

Maybe the prosecutor, or committee, wants to get you, so they can use your wounded body (or testimony in lieu of prosecution) as a stepping stone to get at your boss.

Or maybe, the committee chair is settling political scores. Maybe the chair is playing the part of the picador, jabbing his lance into the bull (i.e., your party) where and when he can. In that case, you might just be the best target he could find. It's nothing personal---it's just politics.

Either way, you'll need great lawyers. Lawyers who the committee members and legal staff know won't be intimidated by the threat of a Congressional subpoena. Lawyers who are respected on the Hill, with the stature to convince committee staff to tone down their attacks.

Great D.C. lawyers don't come cheap. Don't expect to afford one on a mid-level federal government salary.

Part B: lawsuits

Not too long ago, I read that Christie Todd Whitman is facing, personally, at least three lawsuits stemming from her time as EPA chair. From what I can tell, that not only weighs on her mind, it weighs on her purse. She's probably having to retain counsel, at least for legal advice.

And, hasn't Karl Rove been named in a bunch of lawsuits? Yes, he'll most likely eventually win those lawsuits. But, activist plaintiffs can often find free or subsidized legal help. You, the defendant, have to pay for it yourself. With everything, you get what you pay for.

If it hasn't already started, I suspect that activists on both sides will consider using the threat of extended legal harassment---filing lawsuits, compelling depositions, leaking the results of those "confidential" depositions to friendly media---to deflect smart people from opposing parties or philosophies from government service in the first place.

In so doing, the other side can win by attrition. I.e., if the only people in the Justice Department's civil rights division are liberals who favor affirmative action and Democratic Party-favoring policies, than you should expect the DOJ civil rights division en toto to do the same. If there's no one around to mount an opposition to your point of view, then your point of view carries the day by default.

Now, pretend you're a passionate advocate who's ready to enter public service, even though you know you'll be publicy condemned. Your family believes in you, is behind you and is ready to stand beside you.

Great! But, are you willing to put you and your family at financial risk? (BTW, didn't your daughter just get into Dartmouth? Hmmm...Dartmouth isn't cheap...)

The Democratic Party is a party that, in its bone marrow, favors greater centralized, federal control of more and more of our society's key functions. That means you'll need quality people at the controls of that beheamoth, if we want to even have a chance that things will run smoothly and well in our society.

Well, our current political culture scares off good people. Who does that leave left to sit at the controls? A Federal government populated by partisan zealots and milquetoasts who spend their entire careers doing whatever they must to not offend anybody.

Does that sound like a workforce who will generate excellence? Does that sound like a body in whose hands YOU want to entrust your future?

For those who say "well, then we have to change the culture of Washington!---yeah, sure. How do we do that? Snap our fingers? Send out a memo to address group "Federal-Government-All" telling everybody to stop being so mean?

You're not going to change human nature overnight, if at all. What you CAN do, is protect yourself FROM human nature the best you can.

Federalism, and smaller government, is one way to do that. The less we rely on the federal government for, the less risk we run that some function, some part of life we value will get screwed up.

The Democrats are on the path to building a United States of America where more and more aspects of our daily lives, and critical components of our well-being, will be centrally controlled or influenced. That path leads to a whole array of problems, one being the very real likelihood that the people actually making the decisions and pushing the levers in a centralized government won't be of the highest quality.

Sounds like a great argument for smaller government, more private sector reliance and individual responsibility to me. And, IMO, it's an argument that will resonate with many voters. I recommend it's an argument we make in the months ahead.