Washington's organizing principles - its habits, traditions, and methods of operation - are under scrutiny this summer as never before.
Former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld's complaint that "Washington Rules" are blocking his nomination as ambassador to Mexico has launched a nationwide op-ed debate about the extent to which US politics is a cozy power game. At the same time, Senate campaign-finance hearings have explored a money system where fund-raisers appear in party headquarters carrying bags of cash.
Nobody ever talks about The Code of Dubuque, the Waco Way, or a San Francisco System. Are there really Washington Rules? If so, what are they?
"Rules? Sure, I got one for you," says a veteran of numerous political offices as he munches a lunchtime ham and cheese. " 'Cooperate with the FBI before your boss does.' "
On one level it's obvious that a cultural conglomeration that might be called Washington Rules exists. Human societies tend to exhibit unique traits, based on their circumstances. The nation's capital is no different from Boston's Beacon Hill.
Washington Rules, so defined, stem from the codified (the Constitution) to the informal (never wear brown suits). They can be high-minded, as in the Declaration of Independence. Or they can be mundane, as in the Lobbyist Lapel Rule: Wear a lapel pin identifying your special interest. Otherwise, politicians will never remember who handed them that check.
But Mr. Weld seemed to imply that Washington Rules are something a touch more, well, sinister - a nonpartisan conspiracy of incumbents that's denying him a nomination hearing.
It's an opinion that the United States public appears inclined to agree with, if polls are any gauge. Inside the Beltway, it's made many a touch defensive - including some people willing to support Weld's nomination.
You don't get a job at Microsoft by insulting Bill Gates. Why should you get to be envoy to Mexico by insulting Jesse Helms?
"There's a lobbyist in …