In The Conversation, David Brooks and Gail Collins talk between columns every Wednesday.

Charles Dharapak/Associated Press

David Brooks: Gail, I’ve been trying to understand the anger at Washington these days. Specifically, is it personal anger or policy anger? If it’s policy anger then there is a clear way to address it — pass bills X, Y and Z.

Gail Collins: David, it can’t actually be policy anger when people manage to convince themselves that Barack Obama is an anti-American mole because he got the health care bill passed. I’m voting for undifferentiated anger relating to global economic change that’s channeled into lunatic political rage by people who are hoping to benefit from it.

Standards have eroded; that which was once hidden is now normal and above board.

David Brooks: I agree that it’s not policy. The Tea Party people want smaller government, but they always have. When I look at the typology of the electorate, I see a shift to the right, but not a huge one.

So I suspect the anger is more personal and moral. Institutions in Washington are incompetent. People there are getting rich not by making things but simply by grabbing the loot. The standards of behavior are indecent.

Gail Collins: Do you actually think the standards of behavior are more indecent than they were in the past? I’m willing to be convinced, but I need some evidence.

David Brooks: I’m not sure. But I think there’s been an accumulation of small corruption. Standards have eroded. That which was once hidden is now normal and above board. That brings me to Eleanor Holmes Norton.

As you may have seen, Norton left a message on a lobbyist’s voicemail that was leaked to a conservative Web site and now stands as the scandal of the week. Here is a bit of what she said:

This is, uh, Eleanor Norton, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton. Uh, I noticed that you have given to uh, other colleagues on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. I am a, um, senior member, a 20-year veteran and am chair of the subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management. I’m handling the largest economic development project in the United States now, the Homeland Security compound of three buildings being built on the uh, old St. Elizabeth’s hospital site in the District of Columbia along with uh, 15 other, uh, sites here for, that are part of the stimulus.

I like how she says she is “handling” the project. Does that mean she is building it? Picking out the sashes and window treatment. Once a project is approved is there now a Congressional “handler” in charge of collecting the appropriate slush?

Gail Collins: I did hear about it. Very depressing and I can’t excuse it. Although I …

David Brooks: Wait, there’s more. At this point, she continues:

I was, frankly, uh, uh, surprised to see that we don’t have a record, so far as I can tell, of your having given to me despite my uh, long and deep uh, work. In fact, it’s been my major work, uh, on the committee and subcommittee it’s been essentially in your sector. I am, I’m simply candidly calling to ask for a contribution. As the senior member of the um, committee and a subcommittee chair, we have (chuckles) obligations to raise, uh funds. And, I think it must have been me who hasn’t, frankly, uh, done my homework to ask for a contribution earlier. So I’m trying to make up for it by asking for one now, when we particularly, uh, need, uh contributions, particularly those of us who have the seniority and the chairmanships and are in a position to raise the funds.

I like her candor her, and especially her use of the word “candidly.” She could have said, “I’m simply corruptly calling to ask for a contribution….” Or “I’m simply venally calling to ask for a contribution…” Candidly sounds so much nicer.

Gail Collins: A friend of mine who’s run for elective office used to tell me about the terrible long hours when your handlers have you locked in a room with a telephone, and you have to call people and say: “I’m so very interested in your plan for cutting the hands off shoplifters and if you’d like to attend my $500-a-plate dinner I’d be happy to discuss it with you in detail.”

What I hear here is a desperate cry for campaign finance reform.

It’s particularly disgusting that she is pushing on her subcommittee’s building programs, and particularly stupid that she left the message on a recorder, but what we have here is the ugly underbelly of a system that demands that everyone who wants to do what they used to call “public service” first prostitute themselves on the fundraising front.

David Brooks: Just a bit more. Finally, she concludes:

I’m asking you to give to Citizens for Eleanor Holmes Norton, P.O. Box 70626, D.C., 20024. I’ll send you a follow-up note with appreciation for having heard me out. Thanks again.

I’m a little disappointed she doesn’t use PayPal, or have something simpler than snail mail to a post office box. Still, I do like the offer of a thank you note for having “heard her out.” That’s a nice touch.

Gail Collins: What I hear here is a desperate cry for campaign finance reform. But if this is what’s creating such rage on the right, I’d really appreciate it if the angries offered a little bit of help on controlling the ever-escalating cost of Congressional campaigns. Instead, you get the opposite. Where was the Tea Party when the Supreme Court decided that corporations were people when it came to contributing to political campaigns? Why in the name of all that’s holy are they trying to knock out Russ Feingold, who’s one of the very few people in the Senate who has actually made a serious effort to do something about the way we fund our elections?

David Brooks: I’m struck by that too. Maybe people have lost faith in campaign finance reform. Adding a few more regulations won’t improve things. We have to fundamentally drain the swamp. That means making laws simple and straightforward, not complex and easily manipulated. On financial regulation reform, for example, I prefer breaking up the banks to the complex legislation we wound up with.

By the way, I don’t mean to single out Norton, who is probably no worse than the other members of Congress. It’s just that she was dumb enough to record her venality on an answering machine.