When Corruption Becomes Liberating

There was a time not too long ago when the Senator whose name was most closely associated with corruption was the junior Senator from Illinois, Roland Burris (no small feat in a body composed mostly of plutocrats). And if that time has now passed, that's likely due in no small part to the fact that no one remembers who Roland Burris is. Appointed by disgraced former governor Rod "B-Rod" Blagojevich (a man who had this thing--and it was fucking golden--and just had to share it with Burris), Senator Burris clawed his way into office against a strong headwind. Turned away at the door of the Senate when he showed up in January and given the cold shoulder by the Democratic leadership, Burris was only sworn in as a U.S. Senator following the issuance of a state Supreme Court decision favorable to his cause.

Today he's in the news with a headline that's nothing short of hilarious: Shunned senator suddenly relevant.

"I would not support a bill that does not have a public option," Burris, 72, said in a recent interview with The Associated Press. "That position will not change."

Those words caught the attention of the very Democratic leaders who tried to keep Burris out of the Senate, suggested he resign and have shunned him in unprecedented fashion. Burris is not the only Democrat to insist on creation of a government-run health plan. But he is the one who has the least to lose by defying President Barack Obama and the Democrats who once turned him out in the cold rain.

We have now, by the way, entered into the part of the health care debate where anyone not publicly moored to a particular legislative stance tries to jockey for a tiny sliver of relevance. Following the extended media and legislative courtship--culminating in a coveted committee "aye" vote--enjoyed by malleable Maine Senator Olympia Snowe, her fellow Pine Tree Stater Susan Collins started making noises about her own newfound openness to voting for a health care reform bill. Not to be outdone, Joe Lieberman tried to garner some attention by declaring that he doesn't support the bill that Snowe helped vote out of the Finance Committee (though, soon after, he--somewhat sheepishly, one imagines--admitted he wouldn't support a filibuster of a reform bill). Even members of the other chamber are getting into the act, with a leading conservative Blue Dog Democrat, Mike Ross (he of the Ross amendment), recently signaling a (token?) openness to allowing the uninsured to buy into Medicare.

And now we have Roland Burris. This isn't a new position for him, to be sure. He has indicated before that his vote for a reform bill is contingent on the inclusion of a public option. The fact that this storyline is emerging now indicates one of two things: 1) the media is going to push the narratives that it wants to and 2) as the Eleventh Hour for Senate health care negotiation finally appears on the horizon, Burris actually has caught the attention of the leadership as they start thinking about whipping votes. I imagine it's a little of Column A and a little of Column B.

Burris is interesting because he isn't beholden to the Democratic establishment that resisted his entrance into the Senate. That goes as much for the Madigan machine in Illinois as it does for the Reid-Durbin hegemony in the Senate. His association with Round-the-Bend Rod poisoned his relationships with respectable Democrats before he ever directly fell under their wary gazes. Moreover, it's virtually certain that Burris won't be returning to the Senate in January of 2011. The reason Mr. Smiths are so rare in Washington is that most politicians are caught in the gravitational pull of institutions larger than themselves. They are beholden in part to their political party, which assists them in their electoral battles (retaining a Senate seat is almost always easier with the financial and political artillery of the DSCC behind you) and helps to put their policy priorities on the legislative agenda. Politicians are also influenced in part by interest groups. Not only do these outside actors pipe in money for re-election bids, they provide retiring politicians with VIP passage through the "revolving door" that places former government officials into private sector positions that utilize their insider knowledge and connections. Access is power, as well as a currency in which former politicians are well-equipped to deal.

His short tenure in the Senate limits Burris's useful institutional knowledge and his apparent lack of a cordial professional relationship with his colleagues reduces his post-Senate career access almost to nil. He is very nearly a man without a party and a man who can offer organized interests next to nothing. This alone ought to put him in a position as close to purity as it gets in politics: a man who answers only to his own conscience and to his perceptions of his constituents' needs. And, depending on the individual, to pure pettiness. Maybe he's worried about rehabilitating his tarnished legacy or maybe he's looking for headlines, however (unintentionally?) derogatory. But the fact remains that Roland Burris seems to be in a very special position right now.

Ironically, the stench of corruption surrounding Burris may in the end make him the most incorruptible man in the Senate.