In the corporate world, there is a hierarchical structure that allows the manager to fire individual employees. In addition, there are morality clauses in employment contracts that allow people to be fired for actions that reflect negatively on the employer. Last night, Andy Lack made the decision to fire Matt Lauer and he was able to do so simply because Lack has the power to do it.
In the political world, that hierarchical structure does not exist. There is no CEO or manager that can fire a member of Congress or, for that matter, the President. Which means that we are never going to get the instant response for sexual harassment that we (occasionally) see in the corporate world. It is just not going to happen.
That doesn't mean the process for dealing with these morality issues needs to be improved. The secrecy and opaqueness of the Ethics Committee is just not acceptable. The process of reporting and dealing with sexual harassment claims is horribly slanted against the accuser. Taxpayer money should not be used as part of the settlements of claims. All of these processes need to be totally revamped and improved.
That also does not mean that Democrats should not be calling for both Conyers and Franken to step down. Politically, that would probably be the right thing to do at this point. Democrats could also remove them from positions of leadership and strip them of committee assignments. That would also be a strong message. But even if Democrats were united in belief that Conyers and/or Franken should step down, there is very little that they could do to actually force those resignations if the members themselves refuse to do so. The only way to do that is through an investigation by something like an Ethics Committee and then act on a subsequent recommendation for censure or removal. That is the only process that can or will exist, other than waiting for the next election and letting the voters decide.
So, yes, I get the point of Navarro's tweet. But there are clear and definitive structural differences between the corporate and political worlds. There is no structure in our legislative system for the swift terminations that we see in the corporate world. So we should not expect it. That doesn't mean that the political system has no need to act, only that the process will be extended and drawn out.
More importantly, not clearly recognizing these important structural differences allows a false equivalence to take place on multiple levels. On the broader level, you can see that in Navarro's tweet. It's expressing a belief that the political system is somehow immune to the standards we expect in other parts of our society. That is not necessarily true.
Worse, however, the belief that the political system is corrupt allows a further false equivalence between the actions of Roy Moore and Donald Trump and Al Franken and John Conyers. All of them are guilty of some form of sexual harassment. But only Roy Moore and Donald Trump have been accused of harassing and, in Moore's case, molesting minors and underage children. That is a crucial difference that has real significance. The punishment should fit the crime and the degree of the crime. But that difference in degree is getting lost in the fact that the political system seems unresponsive to these charges as compared to the corporate world.
Finally, Josh Marshall makes the point that the only jury is really your constituency. In the corporate world, the constituency of consumers is a driving factor in their decisions. In the political world, the same thing applies. Personally, I think that Conyers must resign. But I also fear we may end up in a place where Franken and Conyers are no long in Congress and Roy Moore is in the Senate and Trump is in the White House. For Trump and Moore, their constituency just doesn't care.
No comments:
Post a Comment