Politics In Acton

So the downfall of Duke Cunningham has prompted a strange debate. No, it's not the old mystery about whatever became of Chuck Cunningham; it's the question of whether the party in power is always more corrupt than the other party. As I'm not entirely convinced America has more than one party in the first place, I have no strong feelings on this question, but it does seem to me that the current rash of Republican scandals is primarily a function of the party's control of most of official Washington. By saying that, however, I am apparently spouting the party line of Reason's GOP paymasters, since the fact that Republicans are more corrupt than the Democrats is as obvious as the medical benefits of circumcision, the superiority of the auteur theory of cinema, and the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

Which is odd because when I covered the same point in an interview about the Tom DeLay indictment with John J. Pitney, I got a rash of hate mail from people denouncing me as an obvious Democratic shill because I hadn't noted that the prosecutor in the DeLay case is a known Democrat who arranged to have 100,000 cattle futures flown into the Mena Airfield in exchange for four buddhist temples, free use of the House Post Office, and backend participation in James Traficant's toupee.

So which is it? Is there any measurable corruption meter in which one or the other party always comes out ahead?

Comments

[Eryk Boston]

Rest assured the meter itself will be corrupted.

[citizengnat]

fuck if I know man. I'm a Democrat, and yes I'm a little ashamed, because I find the Republicans to be reliably mor horific than the Dems. I guess I'm just another valuse voter.

[thoreau]

If this debate is to be at all meaningful, we probably need to distinguish between the national and local parties.

Can anybody suggest with a straight face that entrenched state parties with hegemony, Donkey or Elephant, are uniformly clean organizations? Oh, no doubt we can find a few exceptions on both sides, but overall?

[Eryk Boston]

Thoreau, I think you're being quite naive to think there are even a few clean houses. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're simply being a gentleman.

[robertll]

Democrats are more about sex; Republicans are more about money. Nixon just loved pulling all the levers.

[joe]

I used have a theory about Democratic corruption vs. Republican corruption. Democratic corruption was always just sort of human and sordid. Envelopes full of twenties from a paving company. Sleeping with someone's daughter. Making up a job for your brother in law.

Republican corruption, on the other hand, was scary shit. Selling antiaircraft missiles to the Iranian government to fund an illegal terrorist war in Latin America. Sending military aid to some puppet government so they could massacre the people living on top of an oil field. Having the CIA disappear people.

But now, the Republicans* seem to be working both sides of the aisle.

*I know, it's not really all, or even most, Republicans. It's just the lunatic cabal who control the party.

[Eryk Boston]

Never forget the first rule of coruption:

When buying and selling are controlled by the legislature, the first things to be bought and sold will be legislators. - P.J. O'Rourke (the man who rescued me from a life as a liberal - I can make no higher compliment)

[Pro Libertate]

Tim and thoreau, you know my views: It's oak 🙂

I think a very strong case can be made for corruption being the greatest where a party is the most entrenched. Even today, where the GOP controls the federal government and many states, localities that are Democratic strongholds, without any real competition, are almost certainly more corrupt than locales that have competitive political markets. And, of course, the reverse is true.

I have a feeling that Democrats generically see the GOP as corrupt because of the whole "big business" meme, while GOPers see Democrats as generically corrupt because of the unions. However, generic corruption doesn't interest me. It's the real stuff that matters. The more Rostenkowskis in jail, the better, in my book.

[Eryk Boston]

Hey Joe, let's not forget the D's were behind the Gulf of Tonkin. Top that for corruption.

[Pro Libertate]

"Politics in Acton"--didn't catch that at first glance, Tim. Clever.

[Daniel Montiel]

I don't think you can have a reliable meter--the parties suck at different things (and maybe suck different things, but that's another slash thread).
I would like to put all Federal GOP legislators in charge of the city councils and get some local Democratic school board members to run international affairs. I can't see some overly-PC "We need to remove the word 'Christmas' from the calendar" Democrat approving the bombing in Cambodia, for example.
The two parties' strengths and weaknesses do not balance, per se, but their particular weaknesses and ability to commit harm through their office manifest themselves completely differently.

[Akira MacKenzie]

...because I hadn't noted that the prosecutor in the DeLay case is a known Democrat who arranged to have 100,000 cattle futures flown into the Mena Airfield in exchange for four buddhist temples, free use of the House Post Office, and backend participation in James Traficant's toupee.

Heh heh... that bring back the anti-Clinton rants of my youth. What memories.

[Chairman Ruthless]

Lie with dogs.
Get fleas.

Governments are nothing but running dogs.

Anarchy is Ivory Soap. It floats!

[joe]

Eryk,

It was never a hard and fast rule. Spiro Agnew, for example, indulged in clasic Democratic corruption.

Just more of a tendency.

[thoreau]

Eryk-

I agree that there are probably no clean houses. But some are dirtier than others, and there's always somebody who likes to insist that his particular house is clean. OK, but what about the other 49?

joe-

You make a good point about how the GOP has done some really scary shit. Then again, you can't expect a corrupt city council to sell missiles to Iran. Now, if the Iranians were interested in doing some construction work at above market rates, that they could do!

If the GOP has done scarier shit at the foreign policy level, it's probably because since the end of the Vietnam war the GOP has had the reins at the federal level the majority of the time.

[Larry Edelstein]

A quick, highly overheated quote, apropos of the "pox on both their houses" viewpoint:

"The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in time of great moral crises maintain their neutrality." - Dante Aleghieri

[Pig Mannix]

So which is it? Is there any measurable corruption meter in which one or the other party always comes out ahead?

On the national level, Republican's seem to hold the championship for presidential scandals - Teapot Dome, Watergate and Iran Contra come to mind. The only comparable scandal I can think of on the Democratic side I can think of is Monica-gate.

OTOH, Republicans seem to be more likely to leave office when caught than Democrats. Clinton served out the remainder of his term, and 40 years after Chappaquiddick, Teddy Kennedy is still in office.

[Eryk Boston]

How about Andrew Jackson for the Ds? Is murdering a man by cheating in a duel corruption?

[jason]

Bobby Baker, 1963

A one-time page and prot?g? to Sen. Lyndon Johnson, Robert G. ?Bobby? Baker was practically running the Senate in the early 1960s when he served as a top aide to Johnson and secretary to the Majority Leader.

Literally known as the 101st Senator, Baker hit a brick wall 1963, when stories began circulating about his extra-curricular activities, including rumors of possible mob connections and allegations of influence-peddling.

Eventually, Baker was the subject of Congressional hearings on corruption charges related to several large defense contracts. He was later convicted of criminal charges involving the misuse of his office and campaign contributions.

Adam Clayton Powell, 1967

In 1967, the House voted to ?exclude? Rep. Adam Clayton Powell (D-N.Y.) from Congress after an Education and Labor Committee investigation concluded that the Congressman had used panel funding for personal travel. The panel also determined that Powell had probably paid his wife with Congressional funds for services she hadn?t provided.

Abscam, 1980-1981

Short for ?Arab Scam,? this 1980 sting operation claimed the careers of six House Members and a Senator who were convicted on bribery and conspiracy charges after they were captured on video taking cash bribes from FBI agents disguised as Arab sheiks.

?I?ve got larceny in my blood,? said one of those lawmakers, Rep. John Jenrette (D-S.C.), who was defeated for re-election in November 1980 and then resigned Dec. 10 as the House ethics committee was preparing a resolution to oust him.

Rep. Michael ?Ozzie? Myers (D-Pa.) earned the dubious distinction of being the first Member of Congress expelled since the Civil War.

Others snared in the FBI?s $800,000 operation were: Sen. Harrison Williams (D-N.J.), chairman of the Senate Labor Committee; Rep. John Murphy (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee; Rep. Frank Thompson (D-N.J.), chairman of the House Administration Committee; and Reps. Richard Kelly (R-Fla.) and Raymond Lederer (D-Pa.).

Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) was named an ?unindicted co-conspirator? in the case.

House Page Scandal, 1983

Forget Monica Lewinsky. In the early 1980s, a so-called ?sex and drugs investigation? by the House ethics committee revealed the worst nightmare of every parent of an honor roll student: Members of Congress having sex with underage House pages.

In 1983, the ethics panel determined that Reps. Dan Crane (R-Ill.) and Gerry Studds (D-Mass.) had both engaged in sexual relationships with Congressional pages, both 17-year-old minors.

The Keating Five, 1989-1991

At an April 1989 press conference, savings and loan kingpin Charles Keating made no bones about what he wanted in exchange for the $1.4 million he?d given to Sens. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.), Don Riegle (D-Mich.), Dennis DeConcini (D-Ariz.), John Glenn (D-Ohio) and John McCain (R-Ariz.).

?One question ... had to do with whether my financial support in any way influenced several political figures to take up my cause. I want to say in the most forceful way I can: I certainly hope so,? Keating said.

Jim Wright, 1989

In May 1989, following two intense years of ethics investigations, Rep. Jim Wright (D-Texas) became the first Speaker ever to be forced from office.

Wright, first elected to the House in 1954, came under scrutiny because of charges submitted by Gingrich that included intervening with regulators on behalf of contributors with interests in savings and loans, circumventing outside income limits in a book deal, improperly directing an aide to help write a book for him and accepting gifts from a business partner who allegedly benefited from federal appropriations backed by Wright.

House Bank Scandal, 1991-1992

In 1990, then-Roll Call reporter Tim Burger alerted readers to troubling findings about the now-defunct House Members? Bank. A General Accounting Office audit had shown that the facility had cashed hundreds of bad checks in a single year, putting the institution at risk for ?material losses in the future.?

That initial GAO review turned up $200,000 worth of bad checks. House Sergeant-at-Arms Jack Russ, who ran the House Bank and had been treating Members? overdrafts as salary advances, made promises to reform the system, which included no written procedures for check cashing. But he did little to actually improve matters.

By September 1991, GAO investigators handed a damning report to House leaders showing that the level of abuse was actually much worse. The audit agency had uncovered more than 4,000 bad checks written by House lawmakers. Two dozen Members had bounced checks worth more than $1,000.

While Russ blamed the excess of bounced checks on Members? low salaries, the burgeoning scandal took on a life of its own.

Ultimately, 46 Members were discovered to have made 100-plus overdrafts ? in effect, using the bank as their own petty cash fund. A report by the House ethics committee in April 1992 named 22 lawmakers who had ?abused? their banking privileges, as well as dozens more who had overdrawn their accounts but were not deemed to have abused their privileges.

Voters were unforgiving. The scandal led to the retirement or defeat of more than 50 Members. ?Nearly one-third of the House ? the stewards of our tax dollars ? were all bouncing checks worth more than $1,000, without even having to repay the debt,? said a spokeswoman for the Project on Government Oversight.

Worse, Reps. Albert Bustamante (D-Texas), Carl Christopher Perkins (D-Ky.) and Mary Rose Oakar (D-Ohio) and Del. Walter Fauntroy (D-D.C.) were convicted on House bank-related charges.

House Post Office Scandal, 1992-1994

In 1991, after a low-level clerk at the House Post Office absconded with cash to Puerto Rico, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia began to probe allegations that postal clerks on Capitol Hill had stolen money and distributed narcotics. That investigation soon led to an inquiry into whether Members of Congress were illegally trading postage stamps for cash.

Rep. Joseph Kolter (D-Pa.) was sentenced to six months in prison on July 31, 1996, after pleading guilty to conspiring to defraud taxpayers in a stamps-for-cash scheme. He was one of 12 people, including two lawmakers, netted in the scandal.

House Postmaster Robert Rota resigned in March 1992 and began cooperating with federal prosecutors. He fingered Kolter and the influential Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.). Kolter was defeated in 1992; he eventually admitted to trading nearly $10,000 in stamps for cash. He was also fined $20,000 and ordered to reimburse the government.

Rostenkowski was toppled by little-known Republican Michael Flanagan. Rostenkowski pleaded guilty to mail fraud in 1996 and was fined and sentenced to 17 months in jail.

en. Bob Packwood, 1992-1995

?I am accused of kissing women. ... That is the charge. Not drugging, not robbing, but kissing,? a defiant Sen. Bob Packwood (R-Ore.) declared after the Senate Ethics Committee voted to expel the then-Finance Committee chairman.

In truth, the allegations of sexual misconduct against Packwood involved far more than a peck on the lips.

The story broke in a Washington Post report that detailed the stories of at least 10 women who had been recipients of unwanted sexual advances by the Oregon Senator. Several of them were his own staffers.

Packwood appeared to seal his own fate, however, when the racy pages of his personal diaries ? recorded on tape and then transcribed by a typist ? hit the media. Beyond the titillating details of his sexual escapades, Packwood?s painstaking journals also revealed a raw sense of the man behind the podium.

I report, you decide.

[jason]

...with some help from Roll Call

[Ken Shultz]

thoreau's comment about differences between local and national parties made me think of Tip O'Neal's famous axiom, that all corruption is local, or something like that.

Policy makers aren't responsible for creating the wealth they spend, and no one expects the policies they make to create wealth. What's the criteria for making discretionary purchasing decisions then? To some degree, aren't all such decisions made arbitrarily? ...and an arbitrary decision to a government contractor is like red meat to a hungry tiger, isn't it?

I think the party in power has more leverage in making arbitrary decisions, and, hence, presents more of a target. Other than that, I don't think corruption has anything to do with party.

When you get down to the local level, nobody cares if the people making decisions are Democrats or Republicans. Down at the local level, you better hope the decision makers care about what's in it for the city rather than what's in it for them. ...even so, take a seat sometime and watch your local city's planning meeting or city council meeting. How many of the decisions they make seem more or less arbitrary?

[joe]

I think this discussion is running into a common problems for libertarians - many of you seem to have difficultly knowing what corruption is.

If honestly carrying out your responsibilities under a legal and governmental system some deem too "statist" counts as corruption, then we're absolutely nowhere. We're back in the same mess as those who couldn't tell the difference between a FEMA that responds well to a hurricaine and one that wastes money and spins its wheels, because it's all, like, government spending the money it stole, man.

[Pro Libertate]

I know this is a typical libertarian kind of thing to say, but I don't see a big difference between the parties in any serious regard. The membership of each party differs significantly, but the actual practices (esp. at the local and state levels but at the national level, too) are so close as to take a PhD in philosophy to unravel which is which. Remember, I'm not talking about politician rhetoric or what a partisan blog says, I'm talking about what these people actually do while in power.

This no-real-difference situation is not all bad, because it mostly reflects the great American trait of pragmatism. We'll turn on any party that wanders too far away from the practical center, which is why opponents focus so much on the lunacy of the other side. The flipside of that similarity is that the parties are so much alike that their methods for acquiring and maintaining power are nearly identical. Their methods are. . .unsound, as well as corrupt to varying degrees. That's bad, and I think it's starting to get worse (not than ever, just than recent history) because partisans are simply unwilling to attack their own when they get busted. It's "us the people" against "them the politicans", folks, and the sooner we place our distrust of all politicians ahead of our partisanship, the better off we'll be.

By the way, I'm not fond of just listing a who's who of corrupt politicans to figure out which party is worse. First of all, there's a lot to the adage that the times make the man (or break him). Second, the character of the parties has changed radically over the years. Finally, when a party has a hammerlock on power, the ability to ferret out wrongdoing is incredibly diminished (e.g., the GOP after the Civil War, the Democrats for the bulk of the 20th Century).

[Happy Jack]

The difference between the Dems and the Reps is like the difference between a streetwalker and an escort service.

While the Dems are getting busted for stealing paltry stamps, the Reps are shaking down Indian tribes for millions. The Dems are stuck in their petty thievery of old-time machine politics, while the Reps are the party of bold new ideas like the K Street project.

One might be a classy-looking babe, and the other a skank, but they both practice the oldest profession. One of them just extracts a higher price for their service.

[Jack (not Happy)]

Eryk Boston wrote: "How about Andrew Jackson for the Ds? Is murdering a man by cheating in a duel corruption?"

I'm no fan of Jackson's, but since as far as I can tell from checking websites on the subject he didn't hold a political office at the time of the duel, it couldn't qualify as corruption.

[thoreau]

I see joe's point. My libertarian conversion was probably stalled by at least 6 months by my conversations with an objectivist (but still a good guy to hang out with) who didn't see any difference between spending tax money on "good things" (insert your definition of "good things" here) and old fashioned looting of the treasury. He couldn't care less whether the money went to, say, a Congressman's friend's construction company that never seems to actually build anything, vs. a homeless shelter.

No, I'm not here to defend publicly funded charity, I'm just saying that the charity is a policy question and the graft is ground's for indictment.

[Ken Shultz]

I think this discussion is running into a common problems for libertarians - many of you seem to have difficultly knowing what corruption is.

There's no question that agencies and programs can be run competently and that purchasing decisions can and should be made competently. ...and there's no question but that govrernment has more opportunity to make such decisions arbitrarily.

Many of us expect arbitrary decisons, don't we? ...we want our representatives to infuence policy so that it benefits interests from our state.

By what objective criteria does one support or deny a tribe's casino application? Should a panel take the local economy into consideration when deciding whether to close a military base?

The way sausage is made invites corruption. When we catch someone with his hand in the cookie jar, we should nail him to the cross for everyone to see. ...but sometimes it seems like the only difference between corruption and run of the mill horse trading is that corruption usually involves a cash payment. ...which might be okay, if only the culprit spent it on his campaign.

[tarran]

Joe,

It's not a blind spot. It's rather a massive wall that you cannot overcome 🙂

It goes like this: if you take money by force (and that is inherent in taxation), and spend it on something, you will inevitably spend it on things that the original owner would not have.

It does not matter if you feel the original owner is better off as a result. You have spent the money in a way that he wouldn't have.

So, once your goals and intentions are divorced from that supported by the supplier of the money how does one determine what is truly corruption and what is not?

Obviously the tax-payer's opinion is not the final adjudicator since he is being forced to give up the money at gunpoint.

Obviously the tax-spender's opinion should not be the final adjudicator since he is spending moeny that is not rightfully his.

It obviously cannot be some arbitrary set of tax-payers, since if no one tax-payer can be a final adjudicator, the set cannot have powers that its individual members lack.

Nor, for some similar reason can it be a group of tax-spenders.

Nor can it be a set of neutral parties who neither spend or pay taxes, since the moment they begin passing judgement and providing oversight, they begin influencing the tax-spenders and become tax-spenders themselves.

When coercive force is used against innocents, all attempts to diffrentiate "good" uses from "bad" uses are inherently subjective and thus prone to be rationalized toward the benefit of the thinker.

BTW, I hate to seem like I'm beating up on you, but Democratic Presidents have done some scar shit too, Woodrow Wilson's actions and FDR's actions alone were pretty scary. After all, they maneuvered the U.S. into World Wars, oversaw the creation of the Federal Reserve, confiscation of Gold, introduction of th eincome tax, and then raising of the same to ruinous rates etc. Then of course there was LBJ, who was as scary as they come what with the Vietnam War and his war on the poor. In case M1EK is reading this, yes, the Republicans are pretty bad too, yadda, yadda, yadda... my point is that arguing about which political party is the worst is really like arguing about which serial killer is worse. An interesting exercise perhaps, but hardly a grounds for deciding whether you will let Ted Bundy or Charles Ng date your daughter.

[Hakluyt]

Eryk Boston,

Let us not forget the nefarious dealings between the PRC and the Clinton administration either.

thoreau,

...I'm just saying that the charity is a policy question and the graft is ground's for indictment.

You can't artificially differentiate them that way since the charity itself is a cover for graft.

[Hakluyt]

Is there any measurable corruption meter in which one or the other party always comes out ahead?

No. Anyone pretending that it exists is just a biased cherrypicker like M1EK, joe and thoreau.

[Shem]

I'm sorry to get pedantic Larry, but that quote is one of my pet peeves. According to Dante, the worst part of hell is cold, icy cold, and is for traitors to their benefactors. Judas Iscariot, Brutus and Cassius have special "honors" there, where they get chewed up by Satan for the rest of time.

[joshua corning]

"If the GOP has done scarier shit at the foreign policy level, it's probably because since the end of the Vietnam war the GOP has had the reins at the federal level the majority of the time."

One shouldn't forget Clinton using the weapons inspection program as a CIA cover operation to remove Saddam back in 96'

But yeah it does seem to follow that who ever is in the executive seat does the scary forign policy shit. Joe seems to forget the bay of pigs and the overthrow of Irans democratic government...and don't forget that they invented the fucking CIA thank you very much.

[Mo]

The moons must be aligned oddly tonight because I've gotta agree with joe. Ken brings up a good point about horse trading, but there is still a difference between horse-trading and corruption. Of course corruption is bound to occur in situations of such great power as Congress has. However, there is a difference between doing ones elected, legal duty and doing favors that add little value beyond lining your pockets at the expense of your constituents.

Corruption isn't just about money. I consider Brown's appointment as the head of FEMA a form of corruption, nepotism is fine if the friend or family member is competent, however it crosses the line when the incopetence is as striking as Brown's was.

[paul]

You know, that house banking scandal that involved mostly democrats, I'll give 'em a pass on that. I mean, here are a group of people who have a preternatural inability to understand how money works- and we fault them for not being able to understand the following:

I have x dollars in bank.
If I spend y more than x dollars, how many dollars will I have left?

I mean, come on. They're DEMOCRATS! Give 'em a break!

[Rick Barton]

Two points:

I'm not sure if it's the Dems or the GOP who lead in corruption, but I think that the evidence definitely supports a correlation between very successful politicians and corruption. This is especially true when we correct for the fact that some very successful politicians are removed from office as a result of their corruption after they reach the heights.

Also, it's a mistake to consider as corruption only those acts that are illegal. Government and politicians specialize in activities that are both legal and unethical. (Granting favors to certain segments of the population at the expense of other segments with political patronage as the quid pro quo-this occurs in a range from broad demographic groups to subsidies and competition protection for businesses.) In fact, politicians often work to legalize and reward unethical behavior. When we require that an act be illegal for us to consider it a corrupt act, we cede the ethical high ground to the state. This is a ridiculous mistake, which does not reflect the real world.

I think that the Dems lead in this legal corruption cuz the more extreme absence of libertarianism in their ideology lends itself, but the Bush administration is giving them some stiff competition.

[Rick Barton]

joe:

If honestly carrying out your responsibilities under a legal and governmental system some deem too "statist" counts as corruption, then we're absolutely nowhere.

I meant to say that my second point is an answer to that one.

Also, as an example; are the politicians who use the Kelo decision to condemn folk's property and then get supported by the developers who benefit and maybe also take in more tax revenue really acting "honestly"? Does it matter how we characterize it?

[Douglas Fletcher]

Clearly the Democrats have been less evil over the years, since their hearts are in the right place, therefore their corruption is less scary.

Now I'll turn the chord sheet over and see if makes any more sense that way.

[Douglas Fletcher]

One thing I would say about this Rep. Cunningham is that he sounds pretty d-u-m-b, if it's possible for a Congressman to be that. Every once in a while you hear about some city comptroller getting caught for embezzling after he or she started riding around in a Rolls Royce, stuff like that, but you'd think a Congressman would be a little more slick that than this clown.

[Cherry Poppin' Daddy]

You say thoreau's a cherry picker? I'll show you some cherry picking!

Who's your daddy? Yes I am!

Zoot suit riot (riot!)
Throw back a bottle of beer

[joe]

Rick, if the desire by the developers to make money off the project was the motivator for the Fort Trumbull Plan, than it was corrupt. If the motivation was the public good of redevelopment and economic development, than it was not corrupt, and you have to criticize it on ideological or utilitarian, rather than moral, grounds.

[theOneState]

joe, if the city councilpeople who support eminent domain seizures accept campaign donations from developers who, just for the sake of argument, let's say, aren't so much concerned about the public good, is that corruption? I mean, wouldn't it affect the a councilperson's ability to make real concientious decisions? I'm sure you've seen it before...the the developers' desire to make money *becomes* the motivator.

[tarran]

Joe,

We who say that it is wrong to take people's stuff from them without their consent and that therefore there should be no eminent domain are making a moral argument.

[theOneState]

Back to the question at hand...by the nature of the philosophy, conservatives should tend to be less corrupt. (I mean, "conservative"...come on, this one's obvious.) There's probably some truth to that.

Beyond that, I'm not sure it's the party in power that's always most corrupt. I think you have to look at the corrupting forces, like money and sex. Who gets those? Those are clearly not reserved exlusively to the party in power. Members in powerful positions, or at least in relevant positions in the perspective of the folks with an agenda and deep pockets.

I've wondered myself if this isn't the reason there are so many frickin' committees in congress.

One thing I've noticed, though, is that they all cry about the same when they lose their jobs and start thinking about prison.

[joe]

theOneState,

Just accepting donations would raise an "appearance of impropriety" flag for me, but would not, in and of itself, necessarily be corrupt. And of course businesspeople are motivated by money. That's what makes the world go around. The job of government is to neither promote nor resist that impulse, but to act based on other values. Sometimes by doing things that help private parties make money, sometimes by doing things that prevent private parties from making money. The failure in libertarian thought I mentioned above it to think of who profits and fails to profit as the only relevant factor, and fail to come to grips with the issues of public good or harm.

tarran, yes, you are, but it is not one that is relevant to the issue of corruption. One could call the city clerk who scrupulously reviews hunting applications and issues permits a deer murderer, but that wouldn't be relevant, either.

[joe]

theOneState,

If Bush's term has shown us anything, it's the way that conservatism promotes it own government corruption.

If you don't think having a FEMA that does its job well is important, if cutting checks to your buddies is no different than paying invoices for homeless shelters, and you control the government, why not hand out jobs and money to your friends? Reason shrieked when people blamed the federal failure in New Orleans on "small government philosophy," arguing fairly that Bush has not acted as a small government conservative. But he has most certainly acted as the heir to the philosophy of "government isn't the solution; government is the problem." He certainly hasn't demonstrated any concern about making goverment the solution, has he?

Prediction: some libertarian is going to read this and echo the communist line "That's not what we meant at all. REAL communism isn't like that."

[Krybo Amgine]

Rick, if the desire by the developers to make money off the project was the motivator for the Fort Trumbull Plan, than it was corrupt. If the motivation was the public good of redevelopment and economic development, than it was not corrupt

Who says that the motivation has to be one or the other? Why can't it be both? In fact, I believe that many corrupt people try to convince themselves and others that they're not REALLY corrupt because, while they may personally benefit from shady dealings, whatever they're doing is for "the greater good".

[Jason Ligon]

The parties take on a corruption platform that matches their policy platform. Dems get stuck in labor messes and Repubs get stuck in oil messes. Coalition members get what they want both above and below board.

There are no differences in type or scope of corruption outside of coalition interests. For example, campaign financing rules are coalition neutral, so I'd expect everyone to cheat about the same.

[joe]

Krybo, it is true that human beings and their institutions often have mixed motives. That is not the same, however, as saying that there is no difference between an honest motive vs. a corrupt one.

[J]

"The failure in libertarian thought I mentioned above it to think of who profits and fails to profit as the only relevant factor, and fail to come to grips with the issues of public good or harm."

A failure in (much) liberal thought is to not realize the extent to which profit and self-preservation are central motivating factors for the government, regardless of what the ideal "job of government" is.

[theOneState]

joe, mostly agreed, except on the failure of libertarian thought. I think most people here are talking about corruption even though others are pitching in with complaints about government in general.

No, taking campaign donations shouldn't be viewed as corruption. But that and the little favors developers do for local politicians is, much as I hate this phrase, a corrupting force. As such, the "motivator" for many developments is money (or fame or higher office or whatever), and the motivator for many decisions that go into developments, from what I've seen here in MD and DC and VA (a little extra piece of prime property that wasn't part of the original plan, a few good tax breaks that weren't supposed to be needed, etc.) are personal, not closely related to any concept of the public good.

It's not just the "perception" of corruption, it's the moving away from constituent-based (or public good or whatever) decisionmaking into something else, assisted by external forces.

I don't know how you get around it, though.

[thoreau]

Just so we're clear, are people here now arguing that campaign contributions can be bribes rather than simply free speech?

[Jason Ligon]

"He certainly hasn't demonstrated any concern about making goverment the solution, has he?"

Well, what are you talking about? Education?

Besides, if he did consistently want to make government the solution, that would make him a liberal. I know you want to show us that all government officials must morally be liberals, but I don't know that the argument is really legitimate.

[J]

"But he has most certainly acted as the heir to the philosophy of 'government isn't the solution; government is the problem.' He certainly hasn't demonstrated any concern about making goverment the solution, has he? Prediction: some libertarian is going to read this and echo the communist line 'That's not what we meant at all. REAL communism isn't like that.'"

That was a nifty rhetorical trick, anticipating the obvous criticism to your claim and then associating it with the dirty, dirty commies. But it doesn't change the fact that the initial claim is pretty absurd. If the administration were in any meaningful way heir to the philosophy of "...gov't is the problem...", it would have done much more to strengthen the local gov't and private institutions that take the place of federal gov't under this philosophy. And I think it's pretty obvious that Bush thinks the federal gov't _is_ the solution to a hell of a lot of things following/related to 9/11. The sort of cronyism, corruption, and incompetence seen with FEMA, EPA, FDA, etc. has nothing to do with a "...gov't is the problem..." philosophy - it's just good ol' cronyism, corruption, and incompetence.

[Adam]

Adam Clayton Powell, 1967. In 1967, the House voted to ?exclude? Rep. Adam Clayton Powell (D-N.Y.) from Congress..

This I did not know! It would explain why there's a street in Charlie Rangel's district named after him, in the vicinity of Hatemonger Malcolm X Boulevard.

As far as measuring corruption, anyone interested could identify the corruption scandals such as those listed by jason above, in terms of corruption incidents per legislator-year (by party and stratified by minority/majority position).

[This presumes, of course, that identified corruption is a decent proxy for actual corruption.]

[theOneState]

Just so we're clear, are people here now arguing that campaign contributions can be bribes rather than simply free speech?

Ha ha! But yes.

I found funny a recent Reason article that started out suggesting that there's no connection between campaign contributions and legislative outcomes, then went on to suggest that McCain whores for money and the folks who contribute to his campaigns have business in front of him that they hope very much to influence.

I'm not at all for limiting political speech.

[Jason Ligon]

Bring down the system? Are you serious?

[R C Dean]

Just so we're clear, are people here now arguing that campaign contributions can be bribes rather than simply free speech?

I don't think anyone has ever denied that a campaign contribution can be the quid in a quid pro quo with a politician.

That in no way justifies treating every statement regarding a political campaign that is distributed beyond the sound of the speaker's voice as a crime (unless, of course, it is done through government approved media channels).

[Jason Ligon]

joe:

News flash - each party wants its own people in positions of power. Yes, if you are interested in limiting the role of government, it is advisable to appoint people who share that general thought process. It is absurd to pretend that the best way to avoid corruption is to appoint big government cheerleaders.

[theOneState]

geeze, joe, you're cynical but not in a healthy way.

Anyway, we should all be able to agree that this is hilarious:

corruptreport.pdf

Bill Curry, the Democratic gubernatorial nominee who lost to Rowland in
1998 and 2002, now calls Connecticut 'the most corrupt state in the nation.'

"We were the Constitution State," Curry told the Hartford Courant last
month. "We were the home of New England town meeting democracy, and now
we're Louisiana with foliage."

(I thought Louisiana had foliage, but whatever.)

[thoreau]

theOneState-

First, is your name supposed to be a spoof on "the One Ring?" That the state is every bit as destructive as anything forged in the fires of Mount Doom?

Second, I have long gone back and forth on CFR. I am very sympathetic to arguments that CFR fails to rein in corruption while restricting non-corrupt political speech, and I am inclined to err on the side of freedom, even if it means letting some bad guys slip through the cracks. What I can't stand are the people who try to insist that campaign contributions have nothing to do with corruption.

And yeah, it is kind of ironic to hear somebody insist that contributions have no effect on outcomes, and then go on to insist that somebody is whoring for contributions.

[thoreau]

R C-

I mostly agree with you.

[J]

"...modern Republicans became convinced that they needed to seize control of the system by getting "their guys" into positions of power first."

Like Jason said, everyone wants to have their guys in power, regardless of their political philosophy. But putting your guys in power isn't the same as putting your incompetent cronies in power.

[joe]

Jason, "It is absurd to pretend that the best way to avoid corruption is to appoint big government cheerleaders."

Calling them "big government cheerleaders," or whatever other pejorative you care to come up with, does not change the fact that people who are genuinely committed to the honest and competant functioning of government agencies are going to run those agencies in an honest and competant manner, to the best of their abilities. People whose only interest in those organs is to use them for the promotion of themselves and their friends, or some political ideology, cannot be trusted to administer their duties in an honest manner. There is too much moral hazard.

You might as well give Sarah Brady your gun to clean. What do you THINK she's going to do with it?

[Hakluyt]

tarran,

Remember, liberals can only make moral arguments; that's why libertarians have to prove their "bona fides" re: the poor.

theOneState,

What he means is foliage which changes color, etc. with the seasons (though Louisiana has that too). For some stupid reason parochial New Englanders think that only New England marks the change between Summer and Fall with a change in leaf color, etc.

[Hakluyt]

joe,

...does not change the fact that people who are genuinely committed to the honest and competant functioning of government agencies are going to run those agencies in an honest and competant manner, to the best of their abilities.

Max Weber noted how bureaucracies worked when he stated that:

The honor of civil servants is vested in his ability to execute conscientiously the order of superior authorities as if the order agreed with his own conviction.

Bureaucrats and bureaucracies do not excercise independent moral thinking, they are creatures of others, and thus whatever "honesty" they may possess is plugged into the collective will of the bureaucracy as determined by the "superior authorities."

[Hakluyt]

thoreau,

What I can't stand are the people who try to insist that campaign contributions have nothing to do with corruption.

Heh. You are creating a bogeyman who doesn't exist. At the bedrock of libertarian thought is the notion that government is ripe for abuse for those who can wield it. The reason why Campaign Finance Un-Reform is opposed is because its simply another tool to enhance the murderous power of the state. DUH!!!!!

[Jason Ligon]

"Calling them "big government cheerleaders," or whatever other pejorative you care to come up with, does not change the fact that people who are genuinely committed to the honest and competant functioning of government agencies are going to run those agencies in an honest and competant manner"

First, "honest" and "competent" are entirely separate concepts.

Second, we will disagree on the upper bounds of competence of a federal agency. We could make a federal agency to wash your underwear, but I would hesitate to postulate any sort of positive correlation between the commitment the Undersecretary of Briefs has to expanding the Federal role in laundry and the net performance of such a project. Some crazy cat that comes along and says, "Hey, this seems like a stupid thing for government to do," may be the best thing that ever happened to our chafed arses.

No, I have no idea why I went down that path. I'm just sayin' ...

[J]

"...people who are genuinely committed to the honest and competant functioning of government agencies are going to run those agencies in an honest and competant manner, to the best of their abilities."

But it's possible for honest, competent people in charge of gov't agencies to have a "government isn't the solution; government is the problem" philosophy (at least as far as it's generally understood; not total anarchy, ideally...) to run them honestly and competently. They would just administer much smaller agencies than someone with a more liberal philosophy would. It seems like there's always going to be some political ideology involved, and within any ideology you're going to find people who profess that ideology but still use appointments for self-advancement and cronyism.

[David Howard]

Google: "Arrest Bush 41"

[techreseller]

Republicrats
Democrans.

No difference really. Just a different label. Sort of like the car manufacturers do with the same car labeled by two different car companies differently. Toyota and GM did it. Honda and Izuzu did it.

Lord Acton had it right. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Best argument for viable third party candidates. Reduce the amount of power available to any one party, corruption then tends to fall.

[thoreau]

I see joe's point: As long as the chickens are kept in a barn rather than free-range, it's probably not a good idea to have the fox guarding the henhouse.

[joe]

Jason, J, I agree with you that a libertarian, for example, could honestly and competantly administer a federal office. I am not positting that you need to be a liberal to do so. And in many cases, liberal bureaucrats find themselves responsible for carrying out orders they disagree with - look at HHS over the past decade, for example. Honest, decent government administrators put their own ideology to the side all the time - it's part of their responsibility.

But one who is a political activist or party hack first, and who is given authority over such an office, cannot be trusted to the degree that a career officer can be trusted. And woe to the politician who chooses personal and ideological loyalty over expertise and experience - you end up with the Office of Special Plans, stocked with hacks and ideologues, telling you what you want to hear, that the CIA is lowballing the imminent danger of Saddam's nuclear weapons.

[theOneState]

Have to agree with joe AND his implications. One of the things lots of people assumed about Bush is that he would hire competent people at the highest levels. Now you can't find anyone who is unprepared to address Andy Card as "Mr. Secretary".

[Hakluyt]

theOneState,

One of the things lots of people assumed about Bush is that he would hire competent people at the highest levels.

You should assume that any poltician is going to hire folks who he owes favors too whether they are competant or not. Be it Lincoln, Bush, Clinton, Hitler, Chirac, etc. Politics is in part about greasing wheels after all.

[Hakluyt]

theOneState,

Indeed, assuming otherwise is pretty damn naive.

[Isaac Bartram]

Just an aside, it is possible to hire competent cronies.

RFK was probably far more competent as AG than JFK was as President. Even at that the nepotism involved probably detracted from Bobby's effectiveness.

[Hakluyt]

Isaac Bertram,

Since most folks who get into government do so based on who they know its hard to see how nepotism doesn't play into each and every hiring decision.

[Hakluyt]

...based in part on...

[Jennifer]

The One State--
I have to agree. Connecticut has some gorgeous scenery and I like living here, but lately it seems the only really nice, honest thing I can say about Connecticut is "It provides a convenient place for people traveling between New York and Boston to go to the bathroom."

We've got mayors in prison for raping pre-pubescent girls. Mayors in prison for having more Mob ties than the Sopranos. (Only when OUR cities get overrun by the Mob, they don't even get the competent Mobsters.) But you will be glad to know that our Attorney General is trying to ban the sale of some imported British microbrew beer, because the label has a picture of Santa Claus on it and the AG is afraid this will entice The Children to become alcoholics.

Connecticut: our politicians might rape your kids, but at least we won't get them drunk!

[JDM]

The last good objective statistical measure of corruption by Congress that came out was the amount by which Congressmen "beat the street" with their stock picks. Both parties came out the same.

Which corruption is worse for America, the machine local politics of places like Connecticut and Rhode Island, or Iran Contra? Who knows. I find it impossible to avoid the conclusion that it is not preferable for them to be given less power rather than more as a rule, however.

[M1EK]

"In case M1EK is reading this, yes, the Republicans are pretty bad too, yadda, yadda, yadda... my point is that arguing about which political party is the worst is really like arguing about which serial killer is worse. An interesting exercise perhaps, but hardly a grounds for deciding whether you will let Ted Bundy or Charles Ng date your daughter."

That's an incredibly stupid analogy - the only way it would work is if your daughter was GOING to date one of them no matter what you said; so you might as well steer her to the one who was slightly less likely to kill her.

But that presumes that the idiotic equivocations people make here are true - and they're not. At the present time, the current crop of Republicans are far more odious than the current crop of Democrats. During the 1980s, I found the opposite to be true; but the fact that it changed doesn't absolve me of the responsibility to do what I can to elect the less odious guy this time around.

Humans make distinctions. If you can't, you're not much of a human.

[Jason Ligon]

"But one who is a political activist or party hack first, and who is given authority over such an office, cannot be trusted to the degree that a career officer can be trusted."

Eh, this is going to be difficult. Our overall pictures of what is happening clash, so I'll do my best to translate my position.

If we look at motivations for political action, I think there is a tendency to vastly oversimplify what we see. Some people get labeled 'ideologues', meaning that they eschew some preferred method of decision making (perhaps utilitarianism, perhaps another ideology) in favor of ideologically preferred courses of action. Where the left these days really bites my ass is they insist that the other, opposite of the ideologue is some sort of purely rational actor. The choices, we are told, are between irrational fanatics and dispassionate experts.

I deny this chracterization of either side. There are ideological and political elements to all decisions made by any administration.

The avowedly ideological crowd may agree with rational consensus on the state of 'what is'. Ideological differences may lead us to two different tools for analyzing the same problem, each perfectly rational within its assumptions, and we may come to a disagreement on the important characteristics of 'what is'. My point here is that the purely rational is a fantasy once you leave the chalkboard (I might give Dr. T the benefit of the doubt and extend it to the laboratory; I'll have to think about it), because there are all manner of decisions that are influenced by your ideology.

Once we have an understanding of the current state of affairs, the 'how should we proceed' question is predominantly ideological, but is bounded by reason. In other words, you will choose one course of action and I will choose an entirely different one primarily because we have ideological differences. That said, each of our decisions must be internally consistent with reason.

What I see is some overt ideologies influencing policies and some covert ideologies influencing policy. For example, the notion that experience is a shelter from bad decisionmaking is itself an ideological predisposition. Sometimes experience just means institutionally indoctrinated to reject new thinking. Not always, but sometimes.

[Ken Shultz]

I still think some of you are ignoring the basics.

There's a distinction between deals that are made above the table and those that are made in secret, but there's no meaningful distinction between an arbitrary decision in exchange for cash and an arbitrary decision made in exchange for something else.

The problem isn't that some politicians take cash in exchange for their vote or influence, and the problem isn't what some politicians do with the cash or influence they get in exchange for their votes. The problem is that politicians are in a position to make arbitrary decisions, and, unfortunately, that problem doesn't have a solution.

...So we should limit the decisions they can make to as small a scope as possible.

[joe]

"but there's no meaningful distinction between an arbitrary decision in exchange for cash and an arbitrary decision made in exchange for something else."

Well, there are the objective, measureable outcomes of those distinctions. Tell you what, next time I'm choosing a contractor, I won't pick based on the quality of his work or the cost of his bid. I'll just see which one gives me an envellope full of money.

It's not like screwing the taxpayers for a few extra grand is bad or anything. That's just such an arbitrary idea.

[Duke's Cousin]

Randy...who is highly trained at the art of "crying on demand" sobbed before the Judge hearing his son's drug smuggling case ...."My son might have received a lighter sentence if he didn?t test positive for cocaine three times while on bail. When an officer tried to apprehend him after the third positive test, my son hurled himself out a window and broke his leg."

The Duke-stir's previous rants supporting death penalty for drug dealers thinks any Republican's child is abve the law.

[Gibbon]

Umm... there is no group that is immune to corruption, if only because dishonest people flock to money and power like flys to.. umm... A point to make though is that self selecting groups can have stark differences in whatz considered acceptable behavior.

A point though is that the GOP relies heavily on fundamentalist staff. The problem with that is that no sane educated individual believes in their agenda. This leads one (or at least me) to question the type of individual that would support that agenda.

[tarran]

Joe,

When I teach a class on rhetoric, could I use your 3:05 post as part of my course materials? I think it is the most beautiful succinct example of a strawman I have recently seen. It's short and to the point and is remarkably self-contained.

M1EK, how is it a stupid analogy?

You assume that we must select between the Democrats and the Republicans, and so should select the least bad one.

I find them both unacceptable and so I wont pick either. I get impatient when we compare the two since they are bad in different ways, and one can argue how to weigh and aggragate their various attributes until the cows come home.

If my daughter told me that she was trying to decide between Ted Bundy and Charles Ng in selecting a steady boy-friend, I would advise her that Ted Bundy is dead, and charles Ng will probably be executed prior to her reaching puberty, so she should look elsewhere 😉

Joking aside, if I was presented with such a scenario, I would be in a similar situation as we run into in elections: I cannot control the outcome, but it will effect me. I cannot forbid her from seeing either man; if I did she could still do whatever the hell she wanted.

I would however be seriously remiss if I threw up my hands and said, "OK, as long as it's going to be one of the two, I'll help you pick."

I have nothing but contempt for Democratic and Republican politicians. Hell, most of Federal officeholders easily have a body count well in excess of that of Ted Bundy and Charles Ng combined. Certainly I and my children are at greater risk of being killed as a result of the enforcement of one of their laws than by any itinerent serial killer. So I think the analogy is apt.

[M1EK]

"You assume that we must select between the Democrats and the Republicans, and so should select the least bad one."

Yes. We don't have proportional representation; we don't have instant run-off voting. If you fail to choose the lesser of two evils, you are effectively voting for the greater of two evils. Grow up; this is the way the world actually works.

[Jason Ligon]

Causing ... pain ... but, M1EK is right to an extent.

The problem is that there isn't overall evil and overall good in these parties. There are policies. You have to choose the one that advances policies you want or choose against the one that advances policies you are stridently opposed to.

Voting 3rd party in a winner take all system is a choice to be ineffectual.

[thoreau]

Jason-

Always voting third party is a choice to be ineffectual. Voting third party some of the time, and major party the rest of the time, is a choice to becom e a swing voter.

[tarran]

This is so funny,

M1EK, let us say I do take your advice, and after much soul searching settle on the lesser of two evils. Luckily for me, he gets elected! Then he institutes his harmful policies, which kill a couple of thousand of my countrymen and make everyone else a little poorer.

Now, aren't I more responsible for the harm he does than the harm the other guy would have done? By voting for him haven't I given him my consent for all the evil he does?

How can I be responsible for the actions of someone who does not know I exist, and wouldn't care a whit about my opinions or advice even if he did know of me?

If I lived in fascist Germany in the 1930's, should I have joined the Nazi Party since they were the only game in town?

BTW, I love the way you call people stupid and other names then demand that they grow up. It makes your aguments so much more convincing.

[Hakluyt]

tarran,

thoreau and M1EK are basically falling into the false choice fallacy. They do it all the time.

thoreau,

Your statement fallaciously assumes certain outcomes. Without those outcomes coming to pass it falls apart. Stick to phyisics. You aren't good at anything else (well, maybe you are a decent carpet humper).

[Hakluyt]

tarran,

I'm pretty sure they also believe that you must vote to make any sort of change in the political process, etc. They've got that Adlai Stevenson midnset about them that makes me predict such.

[Hakluyt]

M1EK,

Do be a "gentleman," otherwise thoreau will wag his finger at you.

[Eric the .5b]

In this thread, I'm surprised only by the lack of Republicans pointing out the Clinton administration and China as some kind of evidence of moral superiority over the Dems. Slackers!

[J]

"If you fail to choose the lesser of two evils, you are effectively voting for the greater of two evils. Grow up; this is the way the world actually works."

I remember one memorable thread where this came up, and a few of us mentioned Ross Perot in 1992 as a recent example of why this is a bunch of crap. Despite the fact that he was a less than appealing (to be generous) candidate in many ways, despite that fact that the two major parties are so entrenched and have developed a system that strongly favors themselves over third parties (debate rules, ballot access laws, etc), and despite the fact that there are always so many people parroting this bullshit about how we should "grow up" and vote for Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum, he still managed to get almost 20% of the vote and have a significant effect on presidential/congressional politics in the following years.

This is only "the way the world actually works" if enough people make it a self-fulfilling prophecy by deluding themselves into thinking that voting for the shitty candidate instead of the slightly shittier candidate is some great display of maturity and political realism.

[Hakluyt]

J,

That was beautiful man. Way to lay into their paper-thin presuppositions.

[J]

Why thank you. I aim to please... 🙂

[Hakluyt]

J,

Whenever I say or see something like "This is beautiful," etc. I am always reminded of Tom Cruise in Taps. 🙂

[Jason Ligon]

J is only correct to the extent that one is willing to sacrifice the advancement of their most favored policy to make a broad statement about their ideal candidate. Speaking of which, how ideal was Ross Perot from a libertarian perspective again?

Here is the problem, to get even 20% of the vote, which in our system guarantees 0 representation in the immediate election, a candidate would still have to form a coalition that would include non libertarians. Once that happens, you are no longer ideologically pure and you are back to the calculation of which policy you want to advance and which you want to prevent.

If you think you are making a statement and having an impact, okay, but what exactly was the definitive impact of the Perot campaign such that standing coalitions adopted policies in the long term?

Here are the problems as I see them:

1) A vast majority of people care about specific issues more than ideological purity, and of those that demand ideological purity only a vanishingly small percent are libertarian. Specific issues can be advanced by holding ones nose in one of the two major coalitions.

2) To have an effect as a swing voter, you have to deliver a clear signal as to what is required to get your vote. That message must be digestable by one of the two coalitions. "Be a libertarian" won't work. It is too big. If you say, "Ha! I cost you the election!" you must still be approachable by a coalition who can meet your demands without losing a voting bloc of similar size or greater.

3) For a 3rd party to become relevant, it too must be a coalition of interests, which tends to both dilute its message and make an ideologial purist ask themselves how they aren't selling out along with the other coalitions.

4) 3rd party for the sake of 3rd party, absent either policy advancement or a platform that can in whole or significant part be adopted by the two major parties is completely uninteresting to me. It accomplishes nothing that the two coalitions couldn't accomplish.

[Hakluyt]

Jason Ligon,

For sake of argument, even we accept what you have written there simply is no reason to compromise. Can you honestly tell me that there is one single policy of either major that a libertarian can agree with? Name me one single policy. Any area of economic or social life will do.

[Hakluyt]

This is why all this "we must compromise" stuff is a crock of shit. Its not them who are compromising, its we that would be, and not compromising X to get Y (which is bad but I guess could be defended if X is very minimal and Y is really important), but X to get, well, at best a very diluted X, so diluted it doesn't even really look like X anymore.

[tarran]

Jason,

You are making some good points, but I must counter by pointing out that neither the Democratic nor Republican parties have a single plank on either of their platforms which is acceptable to me. There is no issue that I can point to and say, "hey this party has it right."

Then, one must also factor in that when a politician gets into office, rarely to thay actually execute what they claimed they would execute.

I do not remember Clinton making much mention about health-care in his campaign. It's possible he or his staff had given some warning about his plans, but it was at most a unemphasized issue of his campaign. Yet it was the first significant program he advocated.

Simillarly Bush the younger ran on a non-interventionist platform, then immediately started rattling his saber at the Chinese.

In addition, when one is a member of some small minority and forms an alliance of convenience with a larger group, the larger group tends to treat ones group as a set of "useful" idiots to be betrayed at the first opportunity. This describes the pathetic abusive relationship between the Republican Party and libertarians, and the Democratic party and libertarians in the first 3 decades of the 20th century.

So, while the strategy of forming issue alliances is a good one, it requires as a prerequisite some issue to form an alliance about, and a chance to expand ones influence permanently. Lacing either of these prerequisites, there is minimal benefit if any.

My personal attitude, shaped by reading Bernays' Propaganda is that we need to focus on planting the seeds of liberty via culture prior to expecting any significant political influence.

[thoreau]

Jason-

I haven't done this before, but I think I'll do it after the next election:

After the elections I'll write to the leaders of the local, state, and national parties. On nice stationery, so they know I took time and didn't just shoot off an email. I'll list for them the races in which I voted LP and their candidate lost. I'll list one or two issues that would have been sufficient to sway my vote. If I put in any hours volunteering for an LP candidate, or if I send any money to an LP candidate, I'll tell the party leaders exactly how much time and money I put in.

I don't expect those people to take my single letter seriously. But if they get enough letters like that, from people who take the time to write a serious letter, and make it clear that they are donors and volunteers, maybe they'll take notice.

I challenge you to do the same. Pick one race and vote LP. Just one race. Between state legislative races, possible statewide races (I don't know what your state election cycle is), US House, and possibly US Senate (I don't know when your Senators are up for re-election), you have at least 2 races to choose from, and perhaps many more. Pick one race, send the LP candidate a small donation, vote LP, and write a letter to a leader in the losing party.

In fact, I challenge every pragmatist to do that. Just vote for one third party or independent candidate, and after the election write a nice letter to a major figure in the losing party explaining a couple of issues that would have been enough to bring you onboard.

I'm not trying to turn the LP into a powerhouse here, I'm just offering a suggestion on how to make your voice heard. That's all.

[Ken Shultz]

It's not like screwing the taxpayers for a few extra grand is bad or anything. That's just such an arbitrary idea.

I'm trying to imagine what my business would be like if I didn't have to worry about paying back loans, making a return for my investors or having something left over when the project was done. What if price, competence, timeliness, etc. didn't have any effect on any of my personal obligations or interests?

...Would I choose the same builders, architects, engineers, etc.? Would politicians choose the same suppliers if they had to contend with my concerns?

We're all familiar with the arbitrary criteria they use. ...Why are so many of the IRS' functions based in West Virginia? Does paying the prevailing union wage make a contractor more attractive or less attractive?

...Aren't these arbitrary concerns?

[Pro Libertate]

Back to the corruption issue, other than my favorite option (reduce government power to the point that corruption doesn't matter very much), I'd like to just make removal much, much, much easier. In another forum I've suggested creating something like the old Roman censor, who could remove people from any of the branches for "good cause". Of course, such an office would be subject to corruption itself and would need to be built into the whole checks and balances network, too (which means--horrors!--amending the Constitution). If "censor" bothers people, just call it Super Inspector General with Actual Power. Obviously, this wouldn't be a one-person gig, so it wouldn't look much like the classical position. Other than the toga, that is 🙂

[Rick Barton]

joe:

Rick, if the desire by the developers to make money off the project was the motivator for the Fort Trumbull Plan, than it was corrupt. If the motivation was the public good of redevelopment and economic development, than it was not corrupt, and you have to criticize it on ideological or utilitarian, rather than moral, grounds.

But those two scenarios aren't mutually exclusive and I suspect and those two types of consideration in fact usually coexist. We should add to them the consideration of the politicians that certain plans will engender campaign contributions.

[Rick Barton]

...Make that: "and I suspect *that* those two types of consideration in fact usually coexist."

Sorry

[Rick Barton]

thoreau PhD:

Just so we're clear, are people here now arguing that campaign contributions can be bribes rather than simply free speech?

That's just the point. Bribes are illegal but campaign contributions can be legal bribes. Campaign contributions should not be limited. What politicians may do for those contributions should be. Smaller government means less favors to give away and thus less corruption.

[Ken Shultz]

I'm with Rick in that campaign contributions are essentially legal bribes. ...but whether a politician spends his bribe on his campaign or puts it in his pocket matters less to me than whether he's permitted to make decisions about things he has no business making decisions about.

I worked with a receptionist once; she was a real complainer. ...She seemed to think the whole company should be reorganized in such a way that was most convenient for receptionists. ...but that's no way to run a company. Given the opportunity, I'm pretty sure she'd have had the government reorganize itself in a way that was most convenient for working receptionists too.

...but is that any way to organize a government? Is it any better to have government make decisions with the best interest of--I dunno--United Auto Workers in mind, or the American Medical Association? ...How 'bout the entertainment industry or the Evangelicals?

I don't really care why politicians make arbitrary decisions anymore; it's enough to know that they do, and that little can be done to change that. We can, however, try to limit the scope of the decisions they can make.

...I don't want them making decisions about my health care or my retirement or my folks' health care of my folks' retirement, etc., etc. I don't know what criteria they're gonna use to make their decisions, but I know it won't be the criteria I'd use.

[Ted]

One thing that's going to tend to make the Republicans more corrupt is the view that government screws up everything it touches in the first place - if government is the problem, then it's actually an improvement if I send my buddies the money it was going to spend. Democrats, believing that government spending can, in fact, produce positive results, would have the opposite incentive. And since corruption scandals diminish people's faith in government, that would also seem to favor Republicans, who don't want people to have faith in government, rather than Democrats, who do.

[Jason Ligon]

Hak and Tarran:

I chose the phrase 'advancement of a policy' to indicate that I don't see it so much as a process of getting everything I want or nothing I want around, say, gun policy. What I see is advancement towards what I want through the elephants and retreat from what I want through the donkeys. To be honest, the elephants are mostly pretty close to something I'd be happy with on that issue.

More to the point, there are certain policies that I feel must be fought in the most effective way possible - like the nationalization of healthcare. If I really care about defeating a policy push that I feel will harm more people of my generation than any other policy I can think of, I'd better choose to be effective and operate within a coalition with high probability of derailing that train.

[Jason Ligon]

thoreau:

To make your strategy effective, you need to represent a bloc of voters that could all be swayed by the same one or two issues. That is how coalition politics works. You will not get access to the platform if 1000 people write letters each demanding different things.

The problem with libertarian purity is that such selecting of priorities makes you a sell out. I know. I hear it all the time.

[Jason Ligon]

"My personal attitude, shaped by reading Bernays' Propaganda is that we need to focus on planting the seeds of liberty via culture prior to expecting any significant political influence."

My view is, respectfully, that this is not realistic. I don't believe voters are going to be motivated by anything so grand as 'seeds of liberty'. You'd not only have to convert people to a libertarian predisposition, you'd also have to make libertarian ideology the primary mover of their voting habits. Most people are concerned with this or that issue that specifically affects them, and if they are moved to vote at all, it is because they want their One Big Issue to be taken care of.

I really believe that working on single issues at a time is all we have. Forming the coalitions needed to advance single issues, and not trying to make majorities swallow libertarianism whole, is the only way we get any improvement through the political process.

As far as getting traction in the masses, I think that education should focus on single issues as well. I agree with your general notion that a you have to infect a majority with your ideas to get movement, but I don't think libertarianism per se is all that effective of a virus. Everyone else but us seems to have pretty good antibodies. Or something.

Whoo, I stretched me a metaphore but good!