An End to Arrogance?

As an institution that changes leaders only a little more often than the Church chooses new Popes, the U.S. House of Representatives truly was stunned by Rep. Tony Coelho’s announcement that he would resign rather than suffer through an investigation of his personal finances. As ambitious as Coelho may be, this congressional meteor of the 1980s is not going to cling to his No. 3 House leadership post and his Merced-based seat like a dying ember, seeking vainly to salvage pride and reputation.

Coelho, 46, is a prototypal modern professional congressman--a former staff aide who became a master of modern fund-raising. He is bright, ambitious and a shrewd political strategist. And faced with the prospect of an investigation, he was commendably decisive.

Washington being in the fervid mood it is in now, there is speculation that perhaps an investigation would unearth more on Coelho than just the junk bond transaction that is prompting calls for an official House probe and has attracted the interest of the U.S. Justice Department. Barring any such disclosures, Americans should take the majority whip at his word, that he did not want to put his family through a protracted House Ethics Committee investigation of the sort that has probed the finances of Speaker Jim Wright of Texas.

Nor, Coelho said, did he want to give House Republicans the chance to develop the theme of rampant corruption within the House Democratic leadership and the opportunity to keep the potboiling until next year’s election. “What they really want is for my party to eat itself alive, for my party to fester, for my party to struggle,” he said. Such comments are consistent with Coelho’s fierce partisan competitiveness.

Coelho’s quick decision served to emphasize by contrast the Speaker’s insistence on getting his day in court, and vindication on at least some of the 69 charges against him. Most Democrats, of course, are anxious to get the trauma behind them and get back to normality. Republicans hope to drag out the affair as long as possible in the hope of cashing in during the 1990 campaign much as Democrats did on Watergate in 1974.

From the standpoint of punishment, there is no rationale for the Ethics Committee to pursue the Wright and Coelho cases should they both opt to resign from the House. The ultimate penalty the House can assess is to expel a member from the body. If any criminal action is warranted, that is up to law enforcement authorities.

So far, there is no evidence the Democrats’ longevity in control of the House--since 1955--has in itself lead to any endemic corruption, or that there has been any Watergate-style cover-up. What does exist, however, is an aura of arrogance and effrontery at the idea that such petty charges should be pursued against the leadership with such vigor. When the new House chieftains take office, they should re-establish the old-fashioned notion that leaders set examples and that ethical behavior must begin at the top.