Never before has the Congress responded so swiftly and decisively to a court ruling. Never mind that the decision issued by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is bound to be overturned, and not a single child will be denied the opportunity to recite the pledge. This was an issue made for political exploitation, and every politician who could get to a camera or issue a press release wanted a piece of the action.
Pardon me for spoiling the party, but all these champions of freedom are missing the point. If you believe in God, fine. But if you don’t believe in God, the government can’t mandate you to say that you do. That’s the bedrock on which this country was founded. Still, it’s a silly issue, and Democrats were right to jump on the bandwagon along with their Republican colleagues in declaring themselves sickened and disgusted by the runaway court. While Attorney General John Ashcroft is gutting the Constitution, why go to the mat on such a frivolous issue?
Democrats were relieved that one of the two judges on the panel who ruled that the phrase “under God” violates the separation of church and state is a Nixon appointee, taking some of the sting out of the GOP’s argument that those crazy San Francisco liberals are to blame. Majority Leader Tom Daschle quickly organized the Senate for a 99-0 resolution upholding the pledge. Only Jesse Helms failed to vote; he is home in North Carolina recuperating from surgery. I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but this pledge issue is so good for Republicans I’m wondering if the ghost of Nixon didn’t somehow engineer this decision to mark the 30th anniversary of the Watergate break-in. The GOP could not have been happier unless the judge ruled that everybody has to tithe to the ACLU.
Bush’s judicial nominations have been stalled on Capitol Hill, and the ruling gives Republicans seeking to break the logjam talking points that will resonate with voters about the “runaway liberal judiciary” and the evils of judicial activism. The charge is not true. Reagan-Bush appointees are in the majority throughout the court system and have given the judiciary a rightward tilt from the Supreme Court down. But Republican spin about how the liberals have taken over, and how the liberals are blocking President Bush’s nominees, could gain traction in an election year and win approval of some conservative Bush appointees who the Democrats might otherwise have been willing to oppose.
This is not the first time the Pledge of Allegiance has become an issue in a political year. George Bush Sr. portrayed Democrat Michael Dukakis in the 1988 presidential campaign as unpatriotic because he refused to sign a bill that would have made the recitation of the pledge mandatory each morning in every Massachusetts classroom. Dukakis balked at making it mandatory, and gave his political life fighting for the principle that democracy means the freedom to opt out of such displays without having your patriotism questioned.
Democrats are not going to make that mistake again. The latest Gallup-CNN poll shows that if voters are given a choice between a Republican and a Democrat running for Congress, Democrats have a nine-point advantage, the biggest gap in three years. The corporate scandals breaking almost daily have partisan Democrats salivating. They think that anything that separates average people from greedy CEOs benefits Democrats in November because Republicans are more identified with corporations. If these were labor union scandals, Democrats would be sweating.
Legislation to tighten accounting rules had been languishing on Capitol Hill, but now the Senate is expected to pass a bill sponsored by Democrat Paul Sarbanes before it leaves for the August recess. The promotional video that Dick Cheney made commemorating Arthur Andersen for its fine work when Cheney headed Halliburton, another company whose finances have come under scrutiny, will be part of the Democrats’ arsenal as they go forward with their new theme of corporate responsibility. “Bush wants transparency and is opposed to corruption–for the Palestinian Authority but not for corporations,” says a Democratic Senate aide, commenting on Bush’s laissez-faire attitude toward industry.
Supporters of Bush always point to the experienced hands he surrounds himself with to compensate for his own lack of experience. That may be true on foreign policy, but the economic team Bush put in place has not risen to the occasion. With investor confidence sinking, the value of the dollar declining and corporate excesses if not outright fraud dominating the headlines, where is the calm, steadying voice on the economy? Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill is rarely heard from and Larry Lindsey, a former academic, has not made himself heard outside the walls of the White House.
Democrats dream of making Securities and Exchange Commissioner Harvey Pitt the poster child for corporate excess. Pitt spent his career before Bush named him to the SEC figuring out ways for the accounting industry to subvert SEC regulations. He was the lawyer representing the big accounting firms, and he did a good job helping the industry dodge government regulations that might have cramped its style and its profits. Pitt has been trying furiously to clean up his image and come across like the guy in the white hat. He now favors regulations that he once opposed, and Democrats could have a hard time making him the scapegoat in part because most voters have never heard of him.
There is a downside for Democrats if they rock the boat too much. The negative talk could further undermine investor confidence and precipitate a market crash. “People are so jittery about the way the economy is going, they don’t want you whacking away at corporations,” says Democratic consultant Joe Trippi. “If you’re for reform or positive change, OK, but bashing won’t work. There’s this really weird fear out there.” No wonder the politicians jumped all over the Pledge of Allegiance. They’ve seen how well appeals to God and country have worked for Bush.
