Larson began with a ten-minute speech. First came a discussion of the economic “stimulus” that the leaders are currently prescribing. Conceding that it will probably be ineffective, he said it was a starting point. He seems to realize (but didn’t say) that a cash infusion from a government that’s already deeply in debt can bring only temporary relief and will probably be injurious over the long term. The “stimulus” won’t reach the neediest of the needy and won’t cover more than a single payment on a delinquent mortgage. Larson tried to hide his feeling of powerlessness over the situation, but he was unsuccessful, at least from where I sat.

There was some discussion in the speech of the war and Larson’s opposition to it, but no detailed discussion of the plight of the soldiers and their families. He expressed the popular view that resources being spent on war could more profitably be applied to the public infrastructure–roads, bridges, schools–now in a state of abject disrepair. He spoke briefly about accountability and how many hearings were being held in the various committees, but he couldn’t bring himself to utter the word “impeachment.”

I looked at the clock and glanced around the room when the microphone got passed to the audience, and there was more than an hour and half, with only a fourth of the chairs occupied. I’d definitely get to ask a question and maybe two. Yeah, right.

Either by force of habit or as a means of limiting discussion of controversial topics, Larson never gives an answer less than five minutes long, and most are much longer. He never answers directly, but, schoolteacher that he is, brings in quotes and anecdotes, along with digressions and personal observations, sometimes leaving the interlocuter wondering whether he actually heard the question.

The first question from the audience, on why Larson should support impeachment as a means of ending the war, elicited a ten-minute reply. To make a long story short, the member is waiting for guidance from on high. Committees are engaged, including John Conyers’ judiciary committee, which is where impeachment must start, and Conyers, Larson, Pelosi, and the rest don’t want to get tripped up. Larson admits that he and Conyers are fearful of the political consequences if they confront Bush and lose, and so they’re proceeding slowly.

The subject turned repeatedly from impeachment, when audience members spoke about public access TV, the death of Suharto, the strain on the armed forces, and Bush’s notorious signing statements, but it kept coming back to the crimes of Bush and Cheney. One persistent questioner used the word “spineless” to describe Nancy Pelosi, House speaker, and Larson hollered at her. He apologized later, but he brooks no criticism of his long-time ally.

He had to take some flak for his endorsement of Barack Obama, including barbs from a constituent who doesn’t believe Obama can win. Larson polled the audience, and 80 percent said they were voting for Obama. He mentioned, as a reason for his endorsement, Obama’s willingness to use the armed forces as tool of diplomacy, giving the audience something to think about, but in almost the same breath, he expressed approval of the British approach to military affairs, in which the broad international consequences of various strategies are taken into account.

Larson strikes me as a man with an assigned place in a heirarchy, and he’s limited by it, rather than empowered. He’s limited in what he can advocate and in what he can say. He knows but can’t say aloud that the president and vice president are thugs. He’s plagued by moral ambiguities, but he can’t discuss them in detail. When asked whether he believes it was a crime to send soldiers into combat on a pretext, he couldn’t say. His audience didn’t see any moral ambiguity here–war based on lies is murder–but John Larson is reserving judgment until the heirarchy moves. He’s willing to call Iraq the greatest foreign policy blunder in our history, but he won’t say it’s criminal. Like a cop in a corrupt town, he’s not going to accuse well-placed wrongdoers unless he’s sure he can make something stick. It’s not a bold or principled approach to law enforcement, but there’s ample precedent for it. There was a time when Democrats could point to principle as a unifying force, but that time is long past, and the person who lives inside Congressman John Larson is paying a high price for the transformation.