White House Chronicle

News Analysis With a Sense of Humor

A Primer for the New Congress

by Leave a Comment

Welcome to Washington, new members of Congress. It is a city of museums, statues, self-importance and arcane ways.

After a post-campaign vacation, you will be ready to take on the world — or at least this city — and begin to make things right. You are coming here to cut through the crap, straighten out the mess, to return the peoples’ government to the people.

You are feeling good, even invincible. This sense of euphoria and possibility is normal. It is nothing to be worried about — and it will pass.

As most of the new class is Republican, you are going to stop the rot come what may. No more liberal shenanigans, no more creeping socialism, no more welfare state, no more European-style mollycoddling of the undeserving.

You are going to loosen the shackles on business and watch it rise like a jolly green giant who has shaken off his captors, including the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Internal Revenue Service.

Oops! Before we go any further, maybe you should pick a target. EPA and IRS are very unpopular — those two are enough for now.

It goes without saying that you are against Obamacare and that should be repealed, or go unfunded, or be replaced with something. Be careful: it may not be as unpopular with your constituents as it is at the country club.

But do not let things like that worry you. You have been elected to Congress. Hallelujah! Reality will not set in until you get to your first caucus, or you see the lousy office you have been assigned, or you learn that that committee appointment you cherished is not coming your way.

Again, worry not. You are about to make a lot of new friends; really nice people, people who will do anything you ask. They have advice about where to live, whom to hire, what schools to send the little ones to — if you have not already decided to leave them back home, which you may when you find out the cost of housing in Washington.

Anyway, the new friends will help you through the intricacies of being a member of Congress. They will advise you on which forms to fill in, how to get your expense reimbursements. Such helpful people. They will also give you advice on issues that are new to you, like net neutrality, the Law of the Sea, and the reason companies have to move overseas.

Amazingly, they also have tickets to wonderful sports events with local teams: the Redskins (football), the Capitals (hockey), the Nationals (baseball). They also have tickets to cultural events, from plays at the Kennedy Center to exhibitions at the National Gallery of Art. It helps so say you love the arts when you are railing against the National Endowment for the Arts, PBS and NPR.

These new friends are the lobbyists, and they have your number already. They know what you like to drink or eat, and whether you prefer to bike, hike or sail. Everything can be arranged. Trust them. They will also guide you on delicate legislative issues; no pressure, just guidance. And who are you to refuse a friend?

Dear Democrats, you are not forgotten but not well remembered either. Your party lost, and you know what that makes you. For two years you must walk the halls of Congress mumbling about income redistribution; how many successes President Obama actually chalked up, but failed to trumpet; and cursing, under your breath, the presence of money in politics — unless it is union money.

There will also be real pleasure for you in thinking up hateful things to say about the new Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, and be quoted saying them in social media.

Whatever your party, as your first term wears on, you will get to feel at home on Capitol Hill. You will know how to play the lobbyists, one against the other, and how to discomfort the leadership of your own party. But mostly, you will come to love Big Government. Welcome to the Washington elite. — For the Hearst-New York Times Syndicate

When Less Was More in the News Business

by Leave a Comment

When I first worked at the newspaper trade in Washington, back in 1966, it was a different journalism. I don’t mean the difference in the technology, the 24-hour news cycle, or the ramped up interest in celebrity. I mean something more protean, more organic.

I worked at The Washington Daily News — a tabloid in size but not in mission — and we covered the news in a very traditional way: whatever our news judgment demanded. Although we were a Washington afternoon newspaper, politics was just part of the mix.

The Daily News had one full-time congressional correspondent, and we sent reporters to Capitol Hill when there was really a lot going on. The Washington Post — then as now the dominant paper in town — covered The Hill more intensely, but not with the intensity that it does today.

In short, political coverage was more laid back; not asleep, but not as frantic as it is now. Nobody felt it necessary to record every slip of the tongue, or where a congressman had lunch or, for that matter, with whom. Certainly, nobody felt they should shun the wine list — and few did.

Covering the White House was a simple matter: once through the gate, you could stroll through the West Wing and talk to people. Today, even if you have a regular or so-called hard pass, you are restricted to walking down the driveway to the press briefing room. If you have an appointment, or want to smell the flowers, you have to have an escort – usually a young person from the press office.

Why this is, and what the purpose of this minder is, nobody has been able to tell me. It is so dispiriting to see the equanimity with which reporters accept their prisoner status.

It did not happen overnight, but gradually under president after president. In my time in Washington, reporter freedom has been curtailed at the White House to the point that unless you want to go to the briefing, there is no point in going through the gate. No news is available because you, the reporter, are not at liberty to collect it.

News out of the White House now has to be gained off the premises, on the phone or by the Internet. The briefing room is a dead zone for print reporters, with the television reporters going back and forth with the press secretary, which is what their medium demands. No news is broken except when the president saunters in and things pick up. That is not worth hanging around there day after day.

But the real change is the proliferation of political media, including the dedicated publications like Roll Call, The Hill, Politico, The National Journal and the cable news networks. This means there are more reporters chasing snippets of news. The big issues get lost as often as not while the news hounds are baying after trivia, little non-events, misstatements, or failure to apologize for imagined sleights.

Also, White House staffers and people who work on Capitol Hill have less and less confidence in reporters and are less frank with them. I find very little point in interviewing Congress people these days because they worry that whatever they say will, if you like, go into their record to be dredged up way in the future.

The other great organic change is in reportorial ambition. Back in the 1960s (and I must confess I started reporting in the 1950s), reporters longed to be foreign correspondents; to go abroad and tell us about life in faraway places. Today, with the emphasis on politics, the ambitious reporter longs to cover politics in Washington. So if there is a big international event, such as the Iraq-ISIS conflict, it ends up being covered through politics. What did Obama say about it? Has John McCain been heard from?

This affects both our understanding of an issue, and does nothing to ameliorate propaganda narratives. Over-covering the snippets does not help: it obscures when it should clarify.

A lot of news used to come out of reporters' long lunches with politicians. Now the number of drinks served, as espied from another table, would be the news. — For the Hearst-New York Times Syndicate

Memo: Mothers and Others March on Washington

by Leave a Comment

To: ME/CFS Community

From: Llewellyn King

Date: June 8, 2014

Subject: Mothers March on Washington

Since I wrote and spoke about the need for a Washington presence for ME/CFS I’ve received many e-mails which ask, in essence, what next?

Here is a modest proposal of what I think should be done, and what can be done with a minimum of effort and a big impact: schedule a Mothers March at the U.S. Capitol on May 12, 2015.

I envisage about 100 mothers of ME/CFS sufferers walking through the Capitol wearing distinctive sashes; a very dignified demonstration — with lots of handouts for anyone who wants one.

Marchers don’t have to be confined to mothers. But if mothers predominate, there will more media attention than if it is just a general demonstration. I think if everyone is wearing, say, white with a blue sash, and women far outnumber men, that will have impact.

There is a long and effective history of mothers en masse changing history: South Africa and Northern Ireland are two examples.

The aim of this demonstration should be to inform the 113th Congress and serve notice on the agencies of government that the ME/CFS community wants parity in research dollars with other diseases that are more in the public eye – and right now.

This demonstration – and there is nearly a year in which to plan it — should be seen as the beginning of something big and enduring, not just a one-time or even an annual event.

My thinking is: If we can generate the right publicity in the major media (and I mean across the spectrum, from NPR to the big newspapers), we may attract the patronage of a major foundation. This would support the creation of a national association for ME/CFS, devoted to lobbying and educating on behalf of the disease until it is established as a medical priority in Congress, the administration and the media. The need is urgent.

I was once sent a wise saying by the mystic Rabbi Nathan of Bratislav which said, in effect, “You will never leave Egypt, any Egypt, if you start by asking how will I make provision for the journey?” There is a life lesson in that — and a lesson for the ME/CFS community.

Maybe a benefactor with time and resources will emerge to organize this mothers demonstration. But, if not ,why not do it anyway?

Suppose right now you decide to go to Washingon, and make your way to Capitol Hill, wearing white with a blue sash (I choose blue because it stands out against white) and walk the halls of Congress, handing out literature that you have downloaded. That is the bare minimum, and it’ll have an impact.

If an organization emerges before then, so much the better, but it is not essential. But as a general proposition, a Committee of 100 is a well-tested, public-pressure device.

The thing is to commit, as individuals, to doing it now.

There is nearly a year to build passion, to get the local CFIDS associations engaged and to make the grand, seminal event of the Mothers March happen. If not en masse, go alone. But go. Start the movement with your white outfit and a blue sash, scarf or shawl.

The best organizations start with determined, committed, like-minded individuals. The power of one is awesome once that person empowers herself or himself. A leaderless demonstration is not leaderless if everyone agrees.

You asked me what should happen next, and my answer always is “Start something, if you are well enough or if you are an advocate. Just start.