Rancor.

Retaliation.

Revulsion.

Three words summarize the statesmanship that emanated from Washington and our elected leaders over the past several weeks.

Members of the U.S. House of Representatives reminded constituents that making a difficult vote five weeks before an election is off limits. In the future a failing economy or waging a war on terror has to be placed on hold when Election Day is on the horizon. It used to be that members of Congress could not use government-paid mail weeks before the election; that restriction has been replaced by a ban on casting controversial votes.

Neither Republican nor Democrat is immune to the no-vote zone, as both sides of the partisan divide took passes on the bailout/rescue (your choice) plan early last week, hoping not to upset voters.

There may have been a time in America when elections were held so voters could make a choice on issues of importance. The duck-and-run strategy in the House is a new interpretation of an informed electorate.

Term limits as espoused in the early 1990s by Newt Gingrich and his band of Republican reformists may have been a great idea even for those who took the pledge and then forgot years later. With limits, a politician at least could vote based on principles and not expediency or the next election.

This latest chapter in the Profiles in Courage saga in Washington has numerous bit players.

Standing in the Rose Garden or on a red carpet in the East Wing of the White House, President Bush did not bring chills to the spines of congressmen in his own party.

Gone are the images of a president appearing before party caucuses on Capitol Hill or sitting off the chamber of the House or Senate, lobbying individual members.

After months of hearing politicians downplay a weakening economy, Americans were startled by the stark word “depression” and other dire consequences if Congress did not act on a three-page memo. No need to worry that unfettered control of a significant slice of economic policy was moving to an unelected (but confirmed) Cabinet secretary who would be leaving office in about three months.

There was no attempt to explain to a skeptical public that the fundamentals of the country’s economic system were in dire need of repair. Words came rushing out, painting a picture of calamity unless $700 billion were immediately set aside, virtually strings-free to prop up the economy.

The average American heard words with no context and was repulsed by the thought that tax dollars would be used to inflate the multimillion-dollar golden parachute for yet another Wall Street financier. The world watched as the image of greed paraded down America’s main streets, dressed up like everyman.

Where was the relief for the family losing its home? Where was the relief

for the family out of work? Where was the relief for the family unable to make ends meet?

The relief was perceived in the story of a high-ranking official from Lehman Brothers who exited the failed firm mere weeks before bankruptcy and with a meager $60 million in his pocket.

The sadness of the events that unfolded in Washington last week is the complete failure to communicate, to provide context for average Americans to understand that the problems may have started on Wall Street but had spread to Main Street.

The spectacle in Washington of finger-pointing, blaming one partisan remark or another for inflaming the situation, is but the latest example of a system gone awry.

Members of Congress should be required to campaign at a foreclosure auction in their district and explain the actions of the past few weeks.

It could be a sobering but enlightening experience.

To reach Tom Griscom, call (423) 757-6472 or e-mail tgriscom@timesfreepress.com.

Comments