A Tale of Two Cities

The best of government and the worst of government showed last week. In the wake of terrorizing shootings and nightmarish bombings, Boston summoned heroism. In the wake of Newtown and avalanches of gun violence, Washington mustered histrionics.

That the consummately professional and tirelessly effective law enforcement agencies working in Boston are overseen by such a disenchanting, dysfunctional, and disastrous bunch like Congress is unsettlingly uncomfortable, even beyond the usual cognitive dissonance endemic to Washington.

Selflessness is subordinated to selfishness.

One week ago, the Senate shamefully failed to pass legislation to renew an assault weapons ban, limit magazine sizes, illegalize straw purchasing and gun trafficking, and, most mind-bendingly, it failed to expand background checks.

The Manchin-Toomey bipartisan bill for sensible gun control reforms, with provisions supported by 90 percent of Americans, was too sanguinely hopeful for a return to the halcyon days when politicians put aside petty differences and party lines for the good of constituents. Nowadays 60 votes are needed to pass anything slightly more controversial than the deliciousness of apple pie. Consequently, most bills with bipartisan support are either insignificant or significantly terrible.

Of course, over 90 percent of those senators voting on the wrong side of history, empathy, or logic were Republicans—members of a party intent on continuing its own crucifixion despite grumblings for reform. As former Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough sounded off, “this party is moving toward extinction.”

But Republican obstinacy and courageous stances against the will of American people are to be expected. It’s like the muted outrage whenever Ann Coulter vomits another hateful string of syllables—evil becomes banal. But it was always pointless to look to the Republicans for progress—the Democrats hold the fault for this failure.

Senator Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat and Majority Leader, squandered the chance to reform filibuster rules and reverse the increasingly anti-democratic dysfunction of the Senate, where 40 senators, who could represent less than one-fifth of the population, can hold up legislation indefinitely. President Obama proffered angry admonishments after the vote, but the energies spent in his eloquent eulogizing for the dead gun bill would be better spent in deft rather than disdainful negotiation with Congress.

Obama’s not-so-bully pulpit notwithstanding, expanded background checks would have been authorized had not four Democratic senators, cravenly fearing electoral rebuke, voted against them. Holding their National Rifle Association scorecards closer to their hearts than letters from bloodied and betrayed constituents, these Democrats epitomize everything wrong with Washington: unbridled duplicity for a few more years of self-absorbed self-importance.

What other than deluded self-interest can account for a Senate that can cast more votes for an amendment forcing all states to honor conceal-carry licenses from any other states than the amendment that would have expanded background checks?

Max Baucus, the Montana Democrat and chair of the powerful Senate Finance Committee, is one of the fantastic four Democratic senators voting against their party but for their pride. Baucus’s vote was thought to help him scramble a win in an upcoming race for his seventh term in a state Mitt Romney won by 13 points in 2012. But he announced yesterday that he would not seek another term, perhaps because of the liberal ire his record has drawn, making his vote even more baffling. Understandably, Baucus was scared—some people simply drop their values at first fright.

Despite being the architect of the Affordable Care Act, Baucus denounced his own bill as a “train wreck” while grilling Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services. A veritable cottage industry of former Baucus staffers working as lobbyists has emerged on K Street, with hordes of lobbyists cajoling him into backing billions of dollars of savings for corporations. And then there was his shameful gun vote.

Between Baucus and Boston is a stark divide. The sycophantic senator quakes in fear of the NRA not liking him and so he runs for the hills. In Boston, first responders and ordinary citizens alike race forward to help.

When asked why he voted down the proposal, Baucus only gave one word, “Montana.” Were he truer, he might have said “re-election.” Were he completely truthful, he would have answered “spinelessness.”

Idrees M. Kahloon ’16 is a Crimson editorial writer in Weld Hall. His column appears on alternate Wednesdays. Follow him on Twitter @ikahloon.