Molly Ivins November 24

AUSTIN, Texas — Now here's a wonderful example of a common political problem tied up with the barmy oddity in which the British specialize. Seems they're having an awful time in England right now because the House of Lords is in rebellion.

Yes, those ermine-caped doofuses, Tories to a man, are gumming up the government, monkey-wrenching the works and generally behaving like a lot of Italian anarchists. Dukes, earls, marquesses, viscounts and barons are shouting, "A la lanterne," "No taxation without representation," "Liberty, equality and fraternity," and "All power to the workers."

Actually, they're not really shouting revolutionary slogans; I just got a little carried away at the thought of the Lords in rebellion. What they're doing is refusing to approve some piece of legislation needed for the European Union; the Lords have now rejected it five times, which is apparently unprecedented in all of British history.

The House of Lords can't stop law (they can only delay it), but because there's some deadline on this European deal, Prime Minister Tony Blair and the Labor government are getting right testy about this. "They can use the Tory majority they have in the upper house to scupper us, and that is what they have done," said Blair.

According to The New York Times, a spokesman at No. 10 Downing St. said the Lords were a "democratic disgrace," which sort of goes without saying when you think about it. A minister named Jack Straw said, "The Tories will rue the day they overreached themselves in this way." And that's a threat.

Which is what this whole deal is really about. The Lords don't actually care about this European deal; what they're upset about is Blair's plan to strip hereditary peers of their right to vote in the House of Lords.

This decision was read out by the queen last week at the ceremonial opening of the new Parliament. The way it works is, there are 435 life peers appointed by prime ministers for some kind of service and 750 of these dukes, earls, etc. This latter group, notes the Times unnecessarily, "is largely Conservative." And what we are witnessing is the squalling, bawling, outraged hissy fit that goes along with every attempt to take away a patently unjust privilege. Isn't it interesting how often you see this?

What could be clearer than that some dippy bunch of peers whose greatest claim to fame is based on what some seven-times-great-granddad did — people who couldn't win an election even if they were qualified to govern — should not be able to hamstring a democratically elected government? That's just kind of self-evident.

To everyone but the peers. They have this special privilege, and by George, they feel entitled to it, and anyone who tries to take it away from them is in for a fight.

What interests me about this loopy episode is how often we see the same kind of thing here. Take any group with a special and patently unfair privilege — say, the oil industry drilling on public lands for a fraction of market value, or miners paying a ridiculous pittance to take millions of dollars' worth of minerals out of the public's land, or the mohair subsidy — and watch these folks react like scalded cats when anyone tries to take away their special privilege. They squeal so loudly you can actually wind up thinking, "Maybe it's unfair to take away this special privilege."

The latest investigation of how our system of special privileges works is "The Buying of Congress: How Special Interests Have Stolen Your Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." It's by Charles Lewis and the Center for Public Integrity, long a source of invaluable information for this column.

Even for those of us who for years have been collecting examples of how legalized bribery works, Lewis & Co. have come up with some fresh and truly outrageous stuff. Some of it is so bad, it's funny. I really enjoyed this description by a tobacco lobbyist about how to get rid of a hostile regulator:

"For example, if we wanted to get rid of Kessler, I would have funded AIDS groups and got them fired up that he's not approving anti-AIDS drugs fast enough. Raise all kinds of hell, and go to Bill Clinton and get him to fire Kessler. And who would benefit? Tobacco, of course. But the AIDS people would do the dirty work because they're so involved, and that's how it's done. You never leave your fingerprints at the scene of the crime."

You know it's bad when you need a legislative detective to figure out who dunnit in a democratic government. The moral of today's story is that next time you hear an ungodly amount of screeching by some interest group claiming that it's "unfair" to take away that special privilege, just let the yowling be sweet music to your ears.

Molly Ivins is a columnist for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. To find out more about Molly Ivins and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 1998 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.