Closing the 'gate' on Enron
January 20, 2002
BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
The scandal about Enron is that, politically speaking, there's no scandal. A week ago, CNN got its design boys to come up with an "Enrongate" graphic for the corner of the screen, and Sam and Cokie announced solemnly that last week's "This Week" would be devoted exclusively to Enron because of the scandal's overriding importance. The excitable fellows at the New York Times were running fevered stories about the "rapidly exploding" scandal and President Bush's "uncomfortably close" links with Enron, secure in the knowledge that the scandal would stick to the predictable script--or, as the Times headline writer put it, full of lofty ennui, "A Familiar Capital Script."
But, alas, Enrongate refused to learn its lines. Indeed, it tossed the script away. The scandal in which Sam, Cokie et al. put so much stock looks increasingly worthless. Hugely overvalued on the Scandal Index (NASDEQ--National Average of Sam Donaldson Excited Questions), the Enrongate stock has rapidly imploded, leaving in its wake many victims, not least many TV producers, who'd invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in a story of almost no political value, as well as millions of ordinary Americans who've lost hours of their valuable time reading and watching Enron hype. Despite Big Media's "uncomfortably close" links and unique levels of special "access" to leading Democrats, when it came to the crunch, the party refused to provide the networks with any "special favors." Instead of coming on TV and huffily demanding resignations and impeachment, the best senior Dems could muster was some generalized concern about the need for campaign-finance reform and tighter regulations on 401(k) plans.
There's a reason for this curious Democratic sheepishness. Here are the last week's revelations:
**In the 2000 political season, Enron divided its soft-money contributions almost equally between Republicans and Democrats. In this, let us note, they brilliantly anticipated the American people's disposition on Election Day.
**The most ethically dubious example of "access" was a pro-Enron call to the administration made by former Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, beginning with the words, "This is probably not a good idea . . ."
**Enron gave $100,000 to the Democrats and was rewarded--within days--with seats on an overseas "trade mission" by the late Clinton Commerce Secretary Ron Brown. During the Clinton era, Enron was showered in $4 billion from federal agencies for various projects.
**Former Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Lieberman, one of the first senators to announce he'd be investigating Enron's ties with the administration, found himself answering questions about a former chief of staff and current political adviser who happens to be an Enron lobbyist. "The relationship won't affect the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee inquiry," Lieberman spokesman Dan Gerstein said Wednesday. Well, that's certainly reassuring, isn't it?
**Enron used its notorious "access" to top Republicans to lobby on many key issues, such as getting Bush to support the Kyoto treaty. Bush, being a world-famous right-wing polluter who won't rest until every caribou in the Arctic has a pipeline running through his rec room, told the environmentally conscious Enron to take a hike: "There's not enough campaign donations on Earth to make me support the Kyoto treaty. Wake up and smell the CO2, you Enron eco-wimps." (I quote from memory.)
Does this sound like the scandal that's going to bring down the Bush administration? Far from being "A Familiar Capital Script," in Hollywood, they'd be calling rewrite. "Wait a minute," says the studio exec. "This guy Ken Lay (John Malkovich), the unacceptable face of capitalism red in tooth and claw. He's in favor of the Kyoto treaty? The bad guy is worried about global warming? That's a typing error, right?"
"Well, er, not exactly. I'm not saying he's an environmentalist. I mean, he might be, there's a lot of money in it, but apparently for certain energy companies the Kyoto treaty is big bucks, the gravy train."
"And all the good guys, the schmaltzy Jew, the liberal black congresswoman, the feisty former first lady, they're all on the take, too?"
"Well, no. I mean, yes, OK, they took the money, but they're now offering to give it to charity. As are the Republicans."
"Yeah, but the little guys who got hurt--we'll have some scenes of harassed housewives feeding their starving kids ketchup soup, and honest blue-collar families being evicted from their trailers?"
"Er, almost. The little guys are mostly fellows in their 30s and 40s who've lost tens of thousands of dollars in 401(k)s because they didn't pay enough attention."
"Wait a minute. They're stockholders? The little guys are stockholders? Let's see if I've got this plot figured out: We're making a film supporting a bunch of disgruntled stockholders who are mad at an environmentalist for giving money to Hillary Clinton?"
"No, look, let me explain it again."
"Geez, it's not exactly 'All the President's Men,' is it? I mean, I know I sent a memo urging us to ease up on the reflexive Hollywood leftism post-September 11, but this is ridiculous."
Meanwhile, polls show that 98 percent of media organizations are reluctant to run any polls on Enrongate, mainly because they're insufficiently damaging to the Bush administration. Al Hunt of the Wall Street Journal triumphantly unveiled his latest accusation: at a recent conference chaired by Dick Cheney, all the government officials and chief execs called him "Mr. Vice President" except for Ken Lay, who addressed him as "Dick." I'm not sure what this proves, except that maybe Al Hunt don't know Dick.
Of course, John McCain, the tiresomely predictable maverick, thinks Enron (like everything else) demonstrates the need for campaign-finance reform and proves the rottenness of the system. In fact, the system comes out smelling great: Enron sent checks to both parties, lobbied both parties, and in return, both parties did exactly what you'd expect them to. As National Review's Rich Lowry points out, you don't have to "follow the money," just follow the ideology. When Enron lobbied Clinton-Gore to support the Kyoto treaty, Bill and Al said sure, no problem--as they would have done without a dime from Ken Lay. When Enron lobbied Bush-Cheney to support the Kyoto treaty, Dub and Dick said fuhgeddaboudit--and the biggest donation in the world wouldn't make any difference.
As for the stockholders who put their entire 401(k)s in the hands of their employer, on the evidence of their initial TV appearances, they make unsatisfying victims. They're like those pop stars you hear about who signed foolish contracts and, despite three No. 1 records in the 1970s, are now broke. (I once met a former Bay City Roller, latterly reduced to a Glasgow "council flat"--public housing.)
You sympathize, but it's hardly the president's fault. And it's less an argument for campaign-finance reform than for personal-finance reform: We the people are too dumb to be entrusted with things like bank accounts; the government should run this complicated money stuff for us and just give us what they think we need for beer and pizza.
I can't wait for Tom Daschle to make that argument.
Mark Steyn is senior contributing editor for Hollinger Inc.
suntimes.com |
