« For Discussion | Main | Politics is Like Las Vegas... You can take it for 3 days at a time. »
The Question to Ask: Is Our Congress Learning?
Yesterday, I spent another precious-few hours of my life inside the Halls of Congress, which allowed me yet another in a series of anthropological investigations into the power structures and decision-making styles of Our Leaders.
Unfortunately, the person I observed most closely was Mr. Dana Rohrabacher (CA) and, instructive as it was, I was reminded of my anthropologist-friend who cautioned her students to make sure that when they chose a culture to study, that they genuinely liked the food, because they would be eating a lot of it.
The background first:
Many of you here have heard me say this, or write it, but it bears reiterating:
The House is like a high school. The Senate is like a country club. The House is a raucous, fast-paced place. The Halls are noisy at times, just like a high school between classes, but even when they are relatively quiet, there are folks running around, and bells can ring precipitously, causing much haste. In hearings, notes are passed, Members stand up often and move in and out, information is whispered, all in a culture of rapid shifting of gears. The Members understand they have two years to get re-elected or bail. The stakes are high, but the attention-span is short.
In the Senate, the same activities take place, but it is a much more sedate and formal place. The pace is often glacial and the tone polite and respectful. Whereas Members will make faces in House hearings as others are talking, such is rare in Senate hearings. The smoke-filled back rooms of the Senate are much like drawing rooms of old, whereas the back rooms of the House are smaller, noisier and a little more like the boy's bathrooms in my suburban high school, if not in decor, in ambiance.
I provide that background so you can understand what I am about to describe:
I am beginning to look at the hearings I attend as pieces of theatre. Not GOOD theatre, mind you, although once in a while, something startling and dramatic happens, usually with little to no audience response. But there is a certain performative quality to the Members' questions and follow-up responses. At the same time, there is also a certain amount of vying for the spotlight, posturing and gesticulating behaviors, and creating the character.
Yesterday, the play went like this:
In the Fellini-esque movie that runs daily in the Halls of Congress, I am sitting in a hearing room in the Rayburn H.O.B., listening to Dana Rohrabacher compare the rendition program with medical errors that happen "all the time".
And YES! He just went to the chestnut d'annee: "There has not been an attack against the US since 9-11".
After the speechifying by Rohrabacher and the fiery sermon from Jerrold Nadler that followed, the SUBJECT of the hearing, Maher Arar, spoke via satellite from Ottawa. Why was he not there in person?
He is still on the United States' terrorist watch list.
(NOTE: Video is from August, 2007, not yesterday)
The information at the end of that video clip was the subject of much of the questioning back and forth yesterday and became, ultimately, the thrust of the dramatic arc. The U.S has not apologized, and still claims that there is evidence to substantiate the charges of terrorism against Mr. Arar.
The scene:
Mr. Arar's Counsel, Kent Roach, was asked by Mr. Nadler if he knew of anything in Mr. Arar's file that would lead to the conclusion that he is, in any way, a threat to the security of the United States. Mr. Roach said that state secrets are, indeed, secret, but he was not aware of anything. Mr. Nadler then revealed that he HAD seen the files, and there was NOTHING in there that would keep Mr. Arar on any watch list.
Let us have a small aside here. Remember that there are often files, and then secret files, and then classified files, and then super-classified files that only Members of Congress and those with "clearance" can read, and then...who knows? A GREAT deal of the content of the hearings I have attended lately has involved the above-mentioned Fellini-esque nature of inquiries that go back and forth on which facts are actually the TRUE facts. And, of course, who has seen the MOST secret files.
And so, the TRUE facts seemingly agreed upon were posited: Mr. Arar is not a threat.
At that point, the denouement commenced, and the tour de force of Mr. Rohrabacher escalated, as he spun around in dizzying circles, trying to leave a pattern of apology and defense of the Bush administration and revealing instead, alas, a mess of a thought process, ending with this:
ROHRABACHER: "An error in a program does not mean that program in and of itself is a wrong program."
The room tittered. Mr. Arar, on camera, blinked. One could not help but wonder if anything this man had been through, which included beatings, electric shocks, being forced to hear the cries of women being beaten, and a two-and-a half year review process by the Canadian government to clear his name could have prepared him for the sheer stupidity he was witnessing. He remained calm.
Mr. Rohrabacher exited the room as Mr. Delahunt, the Chairman, took over the discussion, and held onto the spotlight, tightly. Mr. Ellison, (MN), who had yielded some of his time to Mr. Rohrabacher, complained that he too needed to finish his questions, which he did, although nothing he asked revealed a great deal that was new. The theatrical moments had passed and the play was, clearly, over.
The performances can be deconstructed in several ways, but the questions I was left with were these:
Given that I believe that performers actually learn from each performance they give, because they are adjusting and fine-tuning their choices in the direction of telling the truest story possible, do these Congressional performers, who are, in my opinion, mostly lucky amateurs, ever learn anything new? Can they change their minds?
What is the purpose of these hearings?
What would Members of Congress risk losing if, instead of defending positions and spinning stances, they actually spoke about what and how they were learning, and why the truth matters?
It seems to me that governing and legislating are also acts of creation and revelation; that perhaps with some encouragement, some incentives, and maybe even some education, that such embarrassments as our country's treatment of Mr. Arar and other innocent victims of our own fears and manipulated emotions might be, if not prevented, at least redressed.
But that would take a less passive audience, demanding a higher level of honest and true communications, would it not? It would require abandonment of the adolescent competitive displays that characterize the House hearings, and a return to the solid and often-difficult discourse of honest law-making. In the Senate, it would require a little less pomp and an honest acknowledgment of true circumstances, not to mention some actual actions.
It would also require that we know, without equivocation, that we are not really the audience for such displays. We are the producers. We CAN replace the actors.
14 Comments
Leave a comment
Not registered? Click on 'Sign-in' above and then select 'Sign up' in the lower right corner. Don't forget to click on the link in the confirmation email that will be sent to your email address.
The repubthugs are a strong gang/mafia. They never admit they are wrong or mistaken or change their stance-facts ar irrelevant.
Are the Dems any diferent? Some but not enough and too many are concerned about their life/job and not about the loss of the Constitution.
But can anyone blame another for being oh so human and not rising to hero status?
ps-I threw Dodd some $$ as a thnaks for his stand on FISA ad lft a negative message for Reid on his not backing DOdd. As for Rockefeller-don't get me going
Fascinating analysis, Karen. I appreciate the opportunity to view what happens from another perspective such as the one you've provided.
It provides a different way in which to own and solve the problem.
, I was reminded of my anthropologist-friend who cautioned her students to make sure that when they chose a culture to study, that they genuinely liked the food, because they would be eating a lot of it.
great point!!!
Karen,
Fascinating, indeed.
I work with a woman who makes a lot of mistakes, and has been allowed to stay in her position because her family is friends with the boss.
Anyway - she is a very dramatic person by nature - an actress in her spare time.
When she realizes that people are noticing one of her mistakes, or even calling her on it, she turns into a huge drama queen. Sometimes she gets mad, sometimes she cries, sometimes she invents these tremendous stories by way of explanation. this is much easier for her than to face the error of her ways.
It is kind of ugly and pathetic to watch, but in light of your analysis above, it would seem that these pathetic Republican house members and their dramatic performances are all a big cover, because they know they've screwed up the entire country, government, and even the world. They are too cowardly to admit the errors and work for change, so they just create all this drama on the floor to try to distract people from the real inadequacies they exhibit.
Carol,
Sorry about your co-worker. I know it well--try the Drama Dept. for full scale drama sometime!
But I am beginning to think that the performances are not a cover, but a way of being in Congress. When I was sitting there and blogging yesterday, a blonde aide to Rep. Rohrabacher noticed that I was writing (and occasionally grimacing or giggling at his antics) and was whispering to him. After he made a total ass of himself, she was beaming proudly and noting our complete exasperation.
Keeping the high school metaphor in mind, I am reminded often of Jeff and Bob, two complete asses from my own high school, who weren't really covering up their mistakes with their asinine behavior. Rather, I suspect that they were willing to be in the world as asses, and to live their lives as they pleased; as they felt was their right, and the good of the community be damned.
Both were fond of admiring Hitler in History class, writing pornographic poems in English, and beating up smaller boys after school.
I suspect that the Republicans in Congress behave as they do as a lifestyle choice, and as a way to be a member of the in-crowd (GWB et al). In that, the Republican leadership has done a superb job of keeping the criminal behaviors in line with this week's legislative venture, just as bullies terrorize a school, defining the terms for detente themselves.
We are the ones who need to be providing the reality checks and the consequences. It's really not enough satisfaction to know that Jeff and Bob grew up to be the town drunks, with criminal records. They should have been stopped long ago.
it's the frat boy administration all right.
Karen, thankyou for all of this. We on the other side of the world - only ever get a glimpse into the workings of American Federal Government via movies or television. Yes, the West Wing et al. You are so talented in painting the picture with your fast typing when you are live blogging that it's easy to imagine being there. But while you are blogging I'm usually sleeping so I miss that part.
I have no idea how to get people who oppose the bullies, to speak up; to hold them to account. It seems that once elected they can do as they please.
Now, who is in that top photo? What a beautiful family picture. People have been pulled in for torture {The United States Does Not Torture} due to their ethnicity alone. Or their religion. Or Both - Heaven forbid. Whilst the bullies do their worst and Pelosi and co let them have their way, who knows what the world will bring to us next.
I am glad that I'm Australian and only have to feel embarrassed about our PM who is easily forgotten or overlooked by those in the northern hemisphere. This is a very good thing.
Thanks woz!
The picture is of Maher Arar and his two children. Arar is the man who was renditioned to Syria by our government, thereby depriving him of two years of his children's lives, and them his. Oh yeah, and that torture he endured while he was away...
I'll say this again and again.
Rohrbacher represents all that is wrong with the reactionary values of Southern California, specifically Orange County. A place so evil, where even Costco acts blatantly red.
Wow
Great conversation. Thank you, sincerely.
Karen,
I agree completely with your observations. The psychology of theater requires a successful performer allows themselve to be immersed in their role. The House Republicans who supported SCHIP Bush's veto don't dislike children. They care if a child (most likely one they know) is sick. They are unable to reason in the abstract because their "role", or part in the play, if you will, prevents them from thinking beyond what they are trained to think and say. They are totally immersed. They can't be reasoned with They are just like a psychotic convinced of their delusions, and they are beyond reasonable conversation. Engaging people like this in debate is folly. It is pointless and a waste of time. Time can be better utilized if people stop projecting their own expectations of normal adult behavior onto those who are completely incapable of it. Time would be better spent if politicians and the public alike made the effort to "connect" to each other.
That is one of the reasons the Democrats in Congress are a miserable failure in my humble opinion. They lost sight of the fact that they were brought into office to address many serious issues and problems that the Republican Congress is guilty of creating (however, one has to remember that is was a Democratic majority in the Senate at the time Bush was given his free reign). The most serious of those issues is of course the Iraqi Occupation. The Democrats, while taking care of some other important social issues have neglected the most serious social issue facing this country. They have not shown the will or resolve to end the Iraqi disaster. What role are the Democrats playing? I can only guess, but to me it appears they enjoy playing the role of the warrior sent out by the king to protect the kingdom but who always seems to put an arrow into his foot.
I agree completely with you. If we want to change the plot, we have to change the actors.
Just for kicks, click on my name and watch a very stirring video.
oncall - a great video - and depressing too. How differently America would look to the world with that duo leading.
Hmm. But for some reason(s) my subconscious is too complex to let me remember all at the same until unless I am half-waking-dreaming, that conversation also keeps reminding me of this one:
-----
During one meal, Monsieur Gurdjieff told us the story of a snake who wanted to take religious vows:
In the middle of a forest a man-eating snake saw a monk coming along a path. He went to meet the monk to ask if it was possible for him to take religious vows.
After listening to him, the monk said, “Yes, but if you take religious vows, you will no longer be able to eat men, or attack them!”
The snake promised to obey his instructions.
So, the monk gave the snake some advice, told him how to pray, and said to him, “In one year I will come this way again, and we’ll see how you are getting on,” and he went on his way.
One year later, the monk came back through the same forest. He saw the snake coming towards him. But the snake was emaciated, and covered in wounds. The monk asked him what had happened.
The snake replied that having kept to his promise of no longer attacking men, these men and children had started to throw stones at him.
“I see!” said the monk. “Yes! yes! I certainly asked you not to attack people -- but I didn’t forbid you to hiss!”
-----
because a mind is a terrible thing to baste,
Otter
Oncall,
Great video. Makes my heart ache. The part where he was leaning out the window of the bus....
He looked so happy.
ahh otter - good to see you. And an excellent story. Certainly pertinent.