"Honesty, integrity, and accountability, the values, which should be the hallmark of this government, have instead been thrown under the bus by an arrogant majority, casualties in a misguided campaign to shield from accountability those who abuse this House"
About this Quote
Louise Slaughter invokes the bedrock virtues that lend a legislature its legitimacy and then accuses the majority of sacrificing them for raw power. The triad of honesty, integrity, and accountability reads like a civic creed; to say they were thrown under the bus suggests a deliberate, calculated choice to crush principle when it proves inconvenient. Her phrase arrogant majority names the danger inherent in majoritarian rule: when one party controls the levers, it can bend procedures to protect itself and punish critics, draining the institution of moral authority.
The immediate context was the mid-2000s ethics controversies in the U.S. House, including efforts by the then-Republican leadership to rewrite ethics rules as scandals swirled around figures like Majority Leader Tom DeLay and lobbyist Jack Abramoff. As the senior Democrat on the Rules Committee, Slaughter protested changes that made it harder to investigate misconduct, replacements of watchdogs who had admonished leaders, and caucus maneuvers to shield indicted or embattled members. Her language frames those moves not as routine rule-tweaks but as a campaign that turns accountability itself into a casualty.
There is an institutional plea beneath the partisan edge. A legislature polices itself; without a majority committed to transparent standards and meaningful enforcement, oversight becomes performative and corruption metastasizes. Shielding abusers of the House harms more than political opponents; it damages the public trust on which representative government depends. Slaughter is warning that once fairness and truth are subordinated to expediency, the cost is not borne only by the scandal-plagued few, but by the chamber’s credibility and, ultimately, its capacity to govern.
Her rhetoric also sets a test: will power be used to entrench advantage or to uphold norms that outlast any majority? The health of a democracy is measured not by whether winners can change the rules, but by whether they refuse to do so when it erodes the integrity of the system they temporarily control.
The immediate context was the mid-2000s ethics controversies in the U.S. House, including efforts by the then-Republican leadership to rewrite ethics rules as scandals swirled around figures like Majority Leader Tom DeLay and lobbyist Jack Abramoff. As the senior Democrat on the Rules Committee, Slaughter protested changes that made it harder to investigate misconduct, replacements of watchdogs who had admonished leaders, and caucus maneuvers to shield indicted or embattled members. Her language frames those moves not as routine rule-tweaks but as a campaign that turns accountability itself into a casualty.
There is an institutional plea beneath the partisan edge. A legislature polices itself; without a majority committed to transparent standards and meaningful enforcement, oversight becomes performative and corruption metastasizes. Shielding abusers of the House harms more than political opponents; it damages the public trust on which representative government depends. Slaughter is warning that once fairness and truth are subordinated to expediency, the cost is not borne only by the scandal-plagued few, but by the chamber’s credibility and, ultimately, its capacity to govern.
Her rhetoric also sets a test: will power be used to entrench advantage or to uphold norms that outlast any majority? The health of a democracy is measured not by whether winners can change the rules, but by whether they refuse to do so when it erodes the integrity of the system they temporarily control.
Quote Details
| Topic | Honesty & Integrity |
|---|
More Quotes by Louise
Add to List
