March 23, 2005
David Brooks Takes The Gloves Off
I
don't exactly know what got into New York Times columnist David Brooks
the other day, but it appears someone or something gave him a major
wedgie and out came this:
Masters of Sleaze
By DAVID BROOKS NY TIMES
Published: March 22, 2005
Down in the depths of the netherworld, where Tammany Hall grafters and
Chicago ward heelers gather amid spittoons and brass railings, a
reverential silence now spreads across the communion. The sleazemasters
of old look back into the land of the mortals and they see greatness in
the form of Jack Abramoff.
Only a genius like Abramoff could make money lobbying against an Indian
tribe's casino and then turn around and make money defending that tribe
against himself. Only a giant like Abramoff would have the guts to use
one tribe's casino money to finance a Focus on the Family crusade
against gambling in order to shut down a rival tribe's casino.
Only an artist like Abramoff could suggest to a tribe that it pay him
by taking out life insurance policies on its eldest members. Then when
the elders dropped off they could funnel the insurance money through a
private school and into his pockets.
This is sleaze of a high order. And yet according to reports in The
Washington Post and elsewhere, Abramoff accomplished it all.
Yet it's important to remember this: A genius like Abramoff doesn't
spring fully formed on his own. Just as Michelangelo emerged in the
ferment of Renaissance Italy, so did Abramoff emerge from his own
circle of creativity and encouragement.
Back in 1995, when Republicans took over Congress, a new cadre of
daring and original thinkers arose. These bold innovators had a key
insight: that you no longer had to choose between being an activist and
a lobbyist. You could be both. You could harness the power of K Street
to promote the goals of Goldwater, Reagan and Gingrich. And best of
all, you could get rich while doing it!
Before long, ringleader Grover Norquist and his buddies were signing
lobbying deals with the Seychelles and the Northern Mariana Islands and
talking up their interests at weekly conservative strategy sessions -
what could be more vital to the future of freedom than the commercial
interests of these two fine locales?
Before long, folks like Norquist and Abramoff were talking up the
virtues of international sons of liberty like Angola's Jonas Savimbi
and Congo's dictator Mobutu Sese Seko - all while receiving
compensation from these upstanding gentlemen, according to The Legal
Times. Only a reactionary could have been so discomfited by Savimbi's
little cannibalism problem as to think this was not a daring
contribution to the cause of Reaganism.
Soon the creative revolutionaries were blending the high-toned forms of
the think tank with the low-toned scams of the buckraker. Ed Buckham,
Tom DeLay's former chief of staff, helped run the U.S. Family Network,
which supported the American family by accepting large donations and
leasing skyboxes at the MCI Center, according to Roll Call. Michael
Scanlon, DeLay's former spokesman, organized a think tank called the
American International Center, located in a house in Rehoboth Beach,
Del., which was occupied, according to Andrew Ferguson's devastating
compendium in The Weekly Standard, by a former "lifeguard of the year"
and a former yoga instructor.
Ralph Reed, meanwhile, smashed the tired old categories that used to
separate social conservatives from corporate consultants. Reed signed
on with Channel One, Verizon, Enron and Microsoft to shore up the moral
foundations of our great nation. Reed so strongly opposes gambling as a
matter of principle that he bravely accepted $4 million through
Abramoff from casino-rich Indian tribes to gin up a grass-roots
campaign.
As time went by, the spectacular devolution of morals accelerated. Many
of the young innovators were behaving like people who, having read
Barry Goldwater's "Conscience of a Conservative," embraced the
conservative part while discarding the conscience part.
Abramoff's and Scanlon's Indian-gaming scandal will go down as the
movement's crowning achievement, more shameless than anything the
others would do, but still the culmination of the trends building since
1995. It perfectly embodied their creed and philosophy: "I'd love us to
get our mitts on that moolah!!" as Abramoff wrote to Reed.
They made at least $66 million.
This is a major accomplishment. And remember: Abramoff didn't do it on his own.
It took a village. The sleazo-cons thought they could take over K
Street to advance their agenda. As it transpired, K Street took over
them."
Actually,
we shouldn't be so insincere towards Mr. Brooks, especially if we are
to display his column in its entirety. I extend my apology David. Here
is a direct link to the above article, plus a link to Brooks' NY Times staff page. That ought to calm down the lawyers a bit.
What 'caused' my dubious opening sentence up there at the top was a
touch of apoplexy at Brooks' finally acknowledging the stench emanating
from the decaying moral fibre of Republicans running D.C. these days.
Just where had he misplaced his vile-o-meter? Give me the Chuck Hegels
and the Lindsay Grahams and we can volley back-and-forth. Not so with
the Grover Norquists and the Ralph Reeds. Don't even attempt Jack
Abramhoff on me.
One last word, especially to Ralph: if you and Jesus crossed paths
today, would he equate you to one of the powerful Romans in authority,
one of the temple moneylenders he upbraided, or, last but not least, a
Christian? Maybe more importantly, would you even recognize him?
top
RSS feed
|