If it was under the big top, it would be a hilarious clown show, with pratfalls, wild posturing, tumbling, juggling, and a cacophony of comic chaos.
But, alas, it’s under the Capitol dome, so it’s just the Republican congressional caucus – bumbling, stumbling, and crashing into each other in clownish acts of ideological zaniness, political incoherence, and pathetic ineptitude. The present bedlam on The Hill was prompted by Speaker John Boehner abruptly deciding to Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah out of office, having finally given up on corralling his caucus of clowns.
Sadly, his withdrawal has only intensified the buffoonery, generating a slapstick intramural contest over which group of far-out right-wingers will replace him. Boehner’s contingent of anti-government, corporate-hugging extremists want one of their own, while assorted groupings of even fringier, farther-out packs of mad-dog tea party Republicans want someone who’ll howl at the moon and literally shut down the government.
For a moment, Rep. Paul Ryan appeared to be the consensus pick, except for two problems: One, he doesn’t really want the thankless task of clown-herding; and two, even though he is an Ayn Rand-worshipping, Koch-hugging, laissez-fairyland ideologue dedicated to killing everything from Social Security to Obamacare, Ryan is just not right-wingy enough for the howlers. He’s still considering whether to run for the job, but even if he does – and wins – the spectacle will continue.
Here’s the irony in Ryan’s predicament: He created his own mess! He was chief architect of the 2010 Republican scheme to take over Congress by recruiting and electing the mad dogs who’re now biting him on the butt – and turning the US House of Representatives into the House of Ridiculousness. As Rep. Peter King put it: “We look absolutely crazy.”
“Latest Unease On Right: Ryan Is Too Far Left,” The New York Times, October 13, 2015.
“Far-right House members want to dictate, not be led,” The New York Times, October 14, 2015.
“Political posturing motive is behind so-called crises,” The New York Times, October 12, 2015.

Explaining congressional morality
It’s always interesting to see Congress in action – though “interesting” can also be appalling. For example, what a sight it is to watch Republican leaders as they gleefully try to repeal Obamacare – the law extending health care coverage to all Americans. As they vote one-by-one to kill it, their mantra is, “No to big-government health care!”
What you can’t see, however, is them later slipping down the hallways of the Capitol to a little-known, exclusive medical office that gives them free health care, paid for by the same “big government” they were just ranting about. You might think that such raw hypocrisy would cause them to feel at least a twinge of moral discomfort – but apparently they’ve been immunized to prevent such outbreaks of morality.
A good illustration of the congressional mindset is presently making the rounds on the internet. Called “The Haircut,” it tells the story of a barber who cut the hair of a florist, but refused to take payment from the flower peddler. “I’m doing community service this week,” he explained. The next morning when the barber went to his shop, he found a thank-you note and a dozen roses at his door.
His next customer was a police officer needing a trim. Again, the barber declined any payment. The next morning, he found a thank-you note and a dozen donuts waiting for him, a gift from the grateful cop.
Then, lo and behold, a congressman came in for a haircut. When he tried to pay, the barber once more waved off the money, repeating his commitment to community service. The lawmaker was delighted by this generous gesture. And, sure enough, when the barber went to his shop the next morning, he was greeted by another surprise: a dozen Congress critters lined up waiting for a free haircut.
See, it’s just a matter of one’s moral make-up. Assuming, of course, that you have a moral make-up.
“The Haircut” Original author unknown.

Obama goes Kabuki on us
The negotiations and the sales push behind Washington’s latest (and biggest) “free-trade” agreement amount to Kabuki theater.
What theater? Kabuki. It’s a 17th century form of Japanese drama, featuring elaborate sets and costuming, rhythmic dialogue, and stylized acting and dancing. That does sum up the White House’s production of the Trans-Pacific Partnership: Its negotiations have been set in luxury resorts around the world, covered by elaborate secrecy; insiders wear the costumes of global corporate power, while trade officials parrot rhythmic dialogue about incredible benefits for all; and the President himself is the main actor, dramatically proclaiming that TPP is “the most progressive” trade deal ever, and now he’s doing a stylized political dance in hopes of winning congressional approval.
What a show!
But it doesn’t seem to be selling. Recent polls show broad public opposition to any more of these trade schemes, not only among Democrats, but independents and Republicans, too. Ten of the 2016 presidential candidates are opposed, led by Democratic contender Bernie Sanders (who calls it flat-out “disastrous”) and GOP front-runner Donnie Trump (who dubs it “a horrible deal”). Congressional opposition is strong, and even Ford Motor Company – which was one of the corporate giants allowed inside the negotiations – has blasted it, calling on Congress to vote no.
Inexplicably, Obama views passage of this democracy-strangling corporate boondoggle as his “legacy-making” achievement, even though the only real support he has for it are Republican congressional leaders and the global corporate establishment. That’s not just Kabuki, it’s kooky. As the old aphorism puts it: “Tell me with whom you walk, and I’ll tell you who you are.” To keep track and get involved, go to www.citizen.org/trade/.
“If There Really Is a Final TPP Deal: Can It Pass Congress?” www.alternet.org, October 6, 2015.
“CWA Statement On The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Reached In Atlanta,” www.cwa-union.org, October 5, 2015.
“Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) “Free Trade” Agreement: Talking Points,” www.citizen.org.
“Trans-Pacific Partnership Is Reached, but Faces Scrutiny in Congress,” www.nytimes.com, October 5, 2015.
“10 Presidential Candidates Criticize the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Upping Political Costs of Supporting the Pact,” www.citizen.org.