Molly Ivins July 27

AUSTIN — One day in Washington took us from the sublime to the ridiculous, from the death of the great Justice William Brennan to the weasel-worded posturing of Haley Barbour. O tempora! O mores! — which is what the ancient Romans used to say when they were bemoaning how everything had gone to pot.

It was a day of the most depressing contrasts.

The beloved Brennan, who was simply one of the most thoroughly good people of our time, leaves a magnificent legacy. One man, one vote, freedom of the press to criticize government officials, dismantling the entire system of Jim Crow laws that discriminated against black citizens, an end to discrimination based on sex, and much more. Above all, Brennan stood for the dignity and liberty of individuals.

One irony of his career is that he was so often condemned by conservatives, who are — theoretically, at least — supposed to be concerned with the rights of the individual in the face of a powerful government. One of Brennan's greatest decisions was an apparently technical case involving due process for a welfare recipient whose benefits had been terminated without a hearing. From that case came a whole line of law limiting what government can do to a person without due process. All those loony right-wingers in the "takings" movement and the militia movement who carry on about the evils of government owe Brennan more than they know.

In fact, Brennan is a perfect example of the confluence of right-left concerns when it comes to fundamental freedoms, the kind that always make me wonder why more real conservatives don't join the American Civil Liberties Union. True, Brennan's name is also associated with some of the court's most controversial stands: abortion rights, protected flag-burning, the right to sue for police misconduct and stopping the death penalty (at least for a while). I happen to think he was right on all of those, too, and they too stemmed from his passion for individual liberty.

Finally, there is the sorrow of losing Brennan not just because he was a great justice but because he was a darling. Not an ounce of pretense, smugness or moral superiority to him — but he was such an honorable man; his character was so fine. He came out of Irish ward politics and relished a good political tale and the varieties of human foolishness. There's an old Texas locution using "joy" as a verb that always makes me think of Brennan: He joyed in life.

From Brennan to Haley Barbour — what a comedown.

The former chairman of the Republican National Committee showed up to testify before the Senate campaign finance hearings, oozing unctuous self-righteousness.

The Republicans did nothing wrong. The Republicans didn't break the law. "People who say everybody does it are wrong. It's not true. Everybody doesn't do it." And then the man sits there defending the most obvious money-laundering scheme imaginable.

According to Congressional Quarterly, a $1.6 million transfer from a Hong Kong concern accounted for 67 percent of the RNC's money transfers to state party committees in the three weeks before the '94 election. But, says Mr. Barbour, this was not foreign money because it came through the U.S. subsidiary of the Hong Kong firm. You dignify that "U.S. subsidiary" by calling it a shell corporation — it did no business, had no assets and consisted of the address of a former RNC chairman.

Then, Barbour testified that he never suspected he was getting foreign money. As he sat discussing this loan on the deck of a yacht in a Hong Kong harbor with a citizen of Taiwan, it never even occurred to him.

Next, Barbour claims that it makes no difference if it was foreign money because it didn't go the RNC but to a "completely separate" organization called the National Policy Forum, which Barbour also happened to head. In its own literature and internal memos, the forum is described as "an affiliate," "an offshoot" and "a subsidiary" of the RNC. Its own president said the separation between the organizations is "a fiction."

None of this fazed Barbour. According to him, what the Republicans did was completely legal and okey-dokey; only the Democrats did wrong. It was urp-making.

On the scorecard: Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut is starting to look like a star — calm, polite and clear. Chairman Fred Thompson had some very good moments, patiently trying to get Barbour to address the broader implications of running foreign money through a shell corporation to a shell think tank. John Glenn, although not particularly articulate, has also dropped partisanship in favor of looking at the entire scandal of campaign financing.

Pete Domenici of New Mexico lost it completely and attacked Glenn personally. Susan Collins of Maine seems determined to focus on the irrelevant. Bob Torricelli of New Jersey is very quick on his feet — a lot of talent there but sometimes not much judgment.

On the whole, there's far too much emphasis on "foreign money," as though foreign money were the only problem here and good old American money weren't in there buying itself tax loopholes, subsidies, preferential treatment and corporate welfare, and generally running roughshod over the taxpayers. At a minimum, what we're looking at is clear proof that soft money should be outlawed entirely.

***

Molly Ivins is a columnist for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

COPYRIGHT 1997 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.