OPINION:
Irony abounds in the nation’s capital. Together with double standards, outrageous inconsistencies, and a gaping lack of self-awareness among the governing classes, it provides a beat that defines the tempo of American political discourse. It’s interesting how, given its importance to the national conversation, it so often passes without remark.
This should not be. Admittedly it’s entertaining to take a poke at a politician every now and again for their hypocrisy, but it’s also an important part of the self-government process. Elected officials need to be held accountable for their behavior all the time, not just when it suits the objectives of those clinging to power.
Consider last Wednesday’s vote in the U.S House on the $1.5 trillion Biden budget bill. As is usual these days, it hit the floor without enough time for anyone to read it. However, ostensibly to placate concerns raised by her left flank, Speaker Nancy Pelosi allowed it to come to the floor in two parts, one devoted mostly to domestic programs and the other to defense, governed by a most unusual rule: For either piece to be considered passed and sent on to the Senate for further action, both halves had to be approved.
The domestic part, as we’ve reported in our news pages, was a pork-laden monument to special interests heavily reliant on the now-discredited practice of “earmarking” passed by a not inconsequential vote of 260-171. The $782 billion defense part was also approved, and by a much larger margin that included every Democrat as well as 155 members of the Republican Conference who said they backed it, as we reported because of “the inclusion of nearly $14 billion in aid to Ukraine.”
Is it, therefore, fair to suggest that Mrs. Pelosi devised a process for winning approval of the Biden budget by holding aid to Ukraine hostage? In the convoluted world of Washington thinking, no one seems to think so. Please allow us to differ.
Had the $730 billion domestic spending legislation been defeated — as it could of and almost certainly should have been — then the $14 billion in aid to Ukraine would have been stopped dead in its tracks even if a majority of the House have voted to approve the larger bill in which it was contained. Some seem to think it’s all just politics as usual, with Mrs. Pelosi using the carrot/stick approach to getting what she wanted. But no one should overlook how she threatened to effectively block aid to Ukraine, admittedly in the short term, but at a time when it is desperately needed to achieve a domestic political objective.
It wasn’t that long ago that Mrs. Pelosi, almost single-handedly, whipsawed the House into impeaching a now-former president of the United States in a nakedly partisan act that altered the country’s views on authority and accountability. The overlay may not be precise, and partisans will quibble about the differences that exist between what Mrs. Pelosi did and what Mr. Trump was impeached for, but the essentials are too much alike to ignore. In Mrs. Pelosi’s world, what she did is grounds for removal from office. Fortunately for her, the rest of the world is not quite as myopic as she.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.