The Foley Watch raises a serious, tangential issue: how far are we to probe into the foibles of our peers? While of course deferring to the facts as they unfold, some versions portraying rather sinister motives on the part of the Republican House leadership, how much knowledge is enough (by that leadership and the entire body of colleagues in Congress) to overcome a "presumption of normalcy" that not only members of Congress extend to each other but which we all do in our daily lives, if only as a matter of politeness? The dynamics of pinning the "sinister" or "reckless" or "negligent" label on the House leadership -- which I will not prejudge -- must unfold against the backdrop of social conventions in general and the mores of Congress in particular. While the question is not, "Am I my brother's keeper?" or "Am I my colleague's monitor?" maybe it is justly, "Am I my colleague's supervisor?" But when does an "oversight responsibility" kick in? Shall we establish a "short leash" approach contrary to our political tradition and the bedrock principle of independence that lets our system work? When does an odd fellow become a creep or a pervert or a criminal, and how hard should we non-law-enforcement people probe to find out? Is the tolerance and mutual respect which are ideals for our legislature now be watered down to a more distrustful standard?
