Pervasive Drunkenness Unites Republicans and Democrats
WASHINGTON, DCWith less than fifty days until the mid-term elections, both Democrats and Republicans hope to define the differences between their two parties. But no matter how distinct the party line may be on issues such as the War in Iraq, taxes, or immigration, one issue unites Republicans and Democrats like no other: personal intoxication. Statistics and anecdotal evidence seem to indicate that holding a seat in Congress makes one more likely to abuse alcohol.
Recently, this issue has been brought to light by the revelation that Senate hopeful Mike McGavick (R-WA) was arrested for driving under the influence in 1993. McGavick volunteered the information himself in order to control the potential damage to his campaign. But when further investigation found the details of the incident to be much worse than those reported by McGavick, campaign spokesman Elliott Bundy declined further comment. Nevertheless, McGavick has little to fear, experience shows that a past DUI conviction doesn’t hinder a Congressional candidate’s chances. In fact, it might actually be a resume enhancer.
Around the same time as the McGavick mea culpa, Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) found himself in the media hot seat for suspicion of drunk driving after he crashed his car into a security barricade near the Capitol. Witnesses said they saw Kennedy, nephew of notorious drinker Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA), “staggering” as he exited the vehicle. If so, it wouldn’t be a Congressional first. According to a report by CapitolHillBlue.com, “In the 1998 Congressional session, 84 Representatives and Senators were stopped for drunken driving.” That’s an astounding statistic that equates to 15.7% of the sitting Congress being flagged for a DUI in one calendar year.
In addition, rumors of widespread drinking by Congressional Republicans and Democrats grow on a daily basis. In July, The New York Times reported that Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and John McCain (R-AZ) engaged in a “vodka drinking contest” while on a 2004 Congressional trip to Estonia. A spokesman for Sen. Clinton simply replied “What happens in Estonia, stays in Estonia.” Meanwhile, this past week, Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez spoke before the United Nations, branding President Bush “an alcoholic.” The charge prompted one of Bush’s most staunch political opponents, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) to circle the wagons and announce his unwavering support for Bush. Rangel, whose Party accused Bush of covering up a thirty-year-old DUI charge during the 2000 presidential campaign, referred to Bush as “my president,” yet further evidence of alcohol’s ability to unite Republicans and Democrats.
However, the news isn’t entirely gloomy. A recent Reason Foundation study published in the Journal of Labor Research shows a direct correlation between personal economic success and a willingness to engage in “social drinking.” As a result, one could draw the conclusion that an inebriated Congress is the reason for our unprecedented economic prosperity.
Regardless, it all lends credence to an old adage often voiced by disgruntled voters. When it comes to Democrats and Republicans, what’s the difference? When it comes to the issue of pervasive drunkenness, the sad and resounding answer is: absolutely nothing.










