I hate to go back into the time machine and pull up Dave Brat’s op-ed in the pages of the Richmond Times-Dispatch, but sometimes duty calls…
…and myopia stretches beyond its definition.
Short version: Brat now has to explain to erstwhile constituents (aka: “those people”) why he just voted against Speaker Paul Ryan, whose conservative bona fides were unquestioned until a handful of people decided that power was more important than process.
Brat of course is frantic to change the narrative that he failed his constituents and embarrassed Virginia’s 7th District once again. His only prize? A verbal agreement (?) regarding rules…
The newly elected House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., has verbally agreed to change the way leadership distributes power and authority in Congress. Before, many key deals would be pre-negotiated between House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and passed with the support of fewer than half of the Republicans. Speaker Ryan has promised to put an end to this top-down approach.
Except that Brat had absolutely nothing to do with this. In fact, certain members of the House — Ryan among them — have been working on reforming the rules for sometime now.
Another rather large problem? Webster never gave his commitment in writing to Brat either. In short, Brat is rewriting history in order to paper over his gaffe-as-governance approach.
This is also how I approached my vote for speaker: by listening to my constituents and to my conscience.
Of course, Bearing Drift readers know precisely how Brat arrived at his vote for speaker. Brat promised one thing, Bearing Drift published it, and about 400 angry phone calls changed his mind rather quickly… only after he added the caveat of demanding a written commitment to his concerns from Ryan.
Brat never got that sheet of paper from Ryan. Webster never delivered it either.
Rep. Daniel Webster, R-Fla., responded most favorably to these principles, and even though he has a less conservative voting record than Rep. Ryan, he committed to restoring a more inclusive and open legislative process.
Two things here: (1) Brat never got anything in writing from Webster, as evidenced, and (2) worst of all? Brat was willing to vote for a less conservative speaker just to prove the point.
Brat tries to reform the narrative by telling Ryan the written verbal equivalent of “hey buddy, I was with you all along — I PROMISE!!”
Even though Speaker Ryan did not respond to my list specifically, he committed to many of these principles in his acceptance speech. Ryan and I have similar views on procedure and reforming the committee structure so that the House can return to regular order.
Newsflash: Brat is persona non grata — not for his stand on “principle” when clearly Webster had a different standard. Brat isn’t even sidelined by his peers for the cavalcade of ineptitude he has demonstrated over the last month.
Rather, what Brat is attempting to do here is manage the fallout from breaking his word on Ryan.
Of course, the most amusing line of all?
This was never about a personality or an ideology; it was about the process.
Tell that to Eric Cantor.
Such an approach would be noteworthy and even praiseworthy, if Brat and his handlers ever followed through on it. Instead, their penchant for ad hominem and “immigrants out!” demagoguery might occasionally shoot the moon, but is morally repugnant in an elected official.
Naturally, I’ve written about this definition of conservatism in the past (heck, even recently) about conservatism as process and not an end result. One shouldn’t go so far as to accuse Brat’s op-ed writers of plagiarism though: the rhetoric might be copied, but Brat’s substance is far from merit.
If you want to look towards real reformers in the U.S. House that are actually conservative, look towards folks such as Morgan Griffith and Bob Goodlatte — men who were promoted and praised for making their principles practical rather than making someone else’s principles profitable (for a few).
Look towards men such as Hurt and Wittman who actually propose viable legislation. Look towards Rigell and Comstock who roll up their sleeves and employ their principles for practical result.
…but don’t look towards Dave Brat, who got the Heisman treatment from Ryan on “process,” while two outstanding Virginians were selected to sit on a rules reform committee created by Speaker Ryan. Despite Brat’s protestations on rules, he wasn’t looked to for leadership on that issue.
More to the point, if Brat was sincere about his opposition to Ryan? He might have received that nod to help with rules reform. Instead? Brat gets ignored in Washington, and that is a shame for the voters of VA-07 who are used to leadership rather than grandstanding.
Brat’s few months in public office have openly demonstrated that the man is simply not up to the task. Excuses aren’t governance, and rhetoric without principle is empty precisely because it rarely offers practical results.
