Conflict of Interest

Part of me wants Nancy Pelosi to step in it big time.  Another part of me wants the very best government for my country. The latter, of course, is the only acceptable choice.  But I would love a scenario where Nan appoints Alcee Hastings and the country rises up in ridicule and dismay and she has to back down and appoint Harman or someone else to the chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee.  That would be nice.

As to the reasons that Pelosi dislikes Harman, forget the Iraq war position.  Forget racial politics.  It's petty female jealousy and competitiveness, pure and simple.

Unintelligent

by the Editors
Only at TNR Online
Post date: 11.14.06

n one of her first important acts since Democrats recaptured Congress, Nancy Pelosi is about to make a decision that is both substantively foolish and politically tone-deaf. The decision involves the chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee. For obvious reasons, that post has serious implications for national security--as well as the image of a Democratic Party seeking to convince the public it can be trusted to govern. But it appears alarmingly likely that Pelosi will spurn both with a decision based on petty personal and identity politics.

The current ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee is Jane Harman of California. Harman is one of the most respected Democrats in the House on national security and intelligence issues--a widely acknowledged expert in a field that Democrats as a whole are woefully unfamiliar with. Given her current seniority on the committee, Harman is the natural choice to become its chair in the Democratic Congress--and she has made clear that she wants the job. But all indications are that Pelosi will deny Harman the job and appoint in her place Alcee Hastings of Florida, a former judge who was impeached on bribery charges--and someone who has left no discernable mark upon the critical intelligence debates of the post-September 11 era.

Ordinarily, few people would take Hastings seriously for such an important job. In 1981, Hastings was a federal judge in Miami. He was accused of conspiring with a friend to take a $150,000 bribe in exchange for issuing light sentences to a pair of mobsters. A Miami jury acquitted Hastings (while convicting the friend), but three different federal judicial panels later referred him to Congress for impeachment. "Judge Hastings attempted to corruptly use his office for personal gain. Such conduct cannot be excused or condoned even after Judge Hastings has been acquitted of the criminal charge," concluded one panel, composed of five circuit court judges. It added:

[T]here is clear and convincing evidence that Judge Hastings sought to conceal his participation in the bribery scheme and to explain away evidence connecting him with the sale of justice and that he pursued these objectives through concocting and presenting fabricated documents and false testimony in a United States District Court.

In a then-Democratic Congress, Hastings was impeached by the House on a 413-3 vote and convicted by the Senate, 69-26. (Hastings sounded awfully unrepentant afterward: "Everybody thinks that to get to be a judge is supposed to be the biggest doo-doo on earth. It aaaiiiin't! It ain't! It's just something else to do," he explained to The Washington Post in 1988 with a reverence for the judiciary befitting his alleged behavior.) This disgrace didn't prevent Hastings from winning a House seat, in which he has served since 1993 without leaving much of a mark on the institution.

So why does Pelosi want him for the Intelligence Committee job? There are two likely reasons. The first is that Pelosi personally dislikes Harman. In part, Pelosi is annoyed because Harman, unlike Hastings, was initially a strong supporter of the Iraq war (though she has since become a tough critic). Pelosi is also reportedly infuriated by Harman's aggressive lobbying for the job (allegedly with the help of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, an effort that is reportedly being scrutinized as a part of a larger federal investigation of the group). Some also suggest natural tensions exist between two ambitious, sixty-something women in California politics. (Pelosi's office says Harman always understood that her senior position on the Intelligence Committee came with informal term limits. But that argument is badly undermined by the 9/11 Commission's strong recommendation against term limits for senior Intelligence Committee members.)

The second probable factor weighing on Pelosi is racial politics. Some have noted that Hastings might flunk a basic FBI background check for a sensitive government job, making him a curious choice to oversee the nation's most sensitive secrets--particularly for Democrats who campaigned against the GOP's "culture of corruption." So, if Harman is completely unacceptable, why can't Pelosi just choose some third candidate? The answer, most likely, is that Pelosi doesn't want to skip over a black member like Hastings for fear of angering the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). The CBC has never been shy about protecting its institutional power--even though, with African Americans sure to chair several major committees (Ways and Means, Judiciary, Homeland Security) and the likely ascension of South Carolina's James Clyburn to House majority whip, the CBC is already handsomely represented.

There's ample reason to think that Americans cast a negative vote last week--not so much for Democrats as against Republicans. Over the next two years, voters will be watching to see whether Democrats are up to the responsibility of governing, and doing so with the national interest in mind. If Nancy Pelosi bases her decision about such a critical position on a combination of personal feuding and identity politics, she won't just do Republicans a favor by giving them a readymade bogeyman to attack. She will have shown voters that she's unable to push aside petty institutional politics in the name of the national interest.

the Editors  

 

Comments

[Tom the Redhunter]

As with you, part of me wants to see the Dems make absolute fools of themselves. The other part says that no, that wouldn't be good for the country.

It's not just the Hastings-Harmam issue. There was Pelosi's bizarre pick of John Murtha for the position of majority leader over Steny Hoyer. After campaigning on the GOP "culture of corruption", you don't go and pick Mr "not at this time" to be your second-in-command.

And of course as you know, the Dems picked Hoyer by a 2-1 margin over Murtha. At least most of them had the brains to realize that Hoyer was the more sober choice.

Now it may be that Pelosi is a quick learner and will correct her mistakes. After 1994 boy Clinton did, and staged one of the most impressive comebacks in modern American political history. But unless she comes around soon, Pelosi is going to be history herself before she's even taken up the gavel.