I see in this election cycle Obama is trying his hardest not to take any money from pacs or federal lobbyists - but in the end I’m sure he will owe someone something…it’s just a fact of politics right now.
On the other hand I hope sometime in our future, in my lifetime, we will see a president who owes nothing to anyone in anyway. That would be pretty cool if you think about it. What would that mean for the U.S. to have such a president?
Personally, I think we would see a much more lean government, and certainly would hear about much more of the happenings on the hill. We’d probably be horrifyingly transparent to the tune of some indictments of some past presidents perhaps.
Would it be a bad idea to have a president who didn’t owe anything to anyone?
A politician’s individual power comes through trading favors, essentially. There’s no reason for anyone to go along with anything that any other politician suggests suggests unless you happen to agree, until you add in personal interest.
A government that simply made laws based on real votes based on personal beliefs would never be able to develop any sort of leadership or direction. Every policy would be a reactionary measure. You need ways for a hierarchy to develop to have leaders, and hence to have direction. And for that you need for some people to have some sort of power of each other. Since there’s no legal hierarchy, one has to develop for itself, and in politics that happens via the business of “politicking”, which is basically just salesmanship and comparative foresight in the buying and selling of favors.
Anyone who refused to do this would be a lame duck. You can vote him in as president all you want, but he’s just not going to have much power if the rest of the government decides to ignore him.
Nothing, because your assumption that Presidents pursue policies in order to “pay off” lobbyists and PACs is one that, while widespread, isn’t supported by facts. Money follows ideology – it does not drive it. The NRA-ILA (the NRA’s PAC) gives money to its favored candidates not to buy their votes against gun control but because these candidates had already expressed opposition to gun control. It’s the same with other PACs. They are used to help elect people who agree with them.
And I should note, really the more personal power that Obama has to be able to hook up “presents” for other politicians, the more he can go his own path. If he doesn’t have that, he’ll have to rely on his party to support him, which means following the straight party line. Which essentially makes whoever is leading the Democratic party–the person who really has all the goodies lined up–is leading the White House.
Now this isn’t all to say that the power of the voting public is meaningless. Politicians who don’t have the charisma and tact to keep getting re-elected, nor the charisma to sell the populace on the big ideas, doesn’t have anything to sell either. Finding a big famous charismatic guy and linking your coat-tails to him might add some cookie points in the minds of your own constituency.
Overall it’s a nice blend. Special interests have power because they need to and do play the game and so they’re protected from the tyranny of the masses. But the general public still has the greater share of power as anyone who raises eyebrows will be on the sidewalk in the next election.
So, not playing the game = lame duck + tyranny of the masses. Playing the game (wisely and inobtrusively) = able to forge a unique and potentially inspired path + a safe blend of pleasing the masses with protecting minorities.
One reason that Mayor Bloomberg of New York is so effective is that he came into office not really owing anyone anything. He left the successful company he founded and ran for Mayor because of what appears to be a genuine interest in public service. His personal wealth enabled him to run for Mayor without requiring him to owe substantial favors to any of the estabilished City politicians or political groups. Although his name is now bandied about as someone with a potential for higher office, New York City Mayor is not a traditional stepping stone to anything (other than future political oblivion), and prior to his success as Mayor he was not seen as someone who was seeking a future political career.
Because he is not seen as beholden to anyone for his current or potential future positions, he seems to be able to make decsions based on his views on what is best, rather than any perceived need to pander to any particular group. He’s clear-headedly solved many of the fiscal problems left over from the Giuliani administration, taken over control of the troubled school system, and really pushed for the environment.
I think that Obama has some of the same characteristics. Because of his relatively short time in the Senate and his extremely broad fund raising base, he is less beholden to traditional Democratic political groups than other potential political candidates. Although he is, obviously, politically ambitious, his metoric, almost accidental, rise outside normal political channels has meant that he has doesn’t have the long background in political triangulation that some other career politicians have. He’s been able to rise so quickly through his personal magnetism and ability to connect directly to voters, rather than through his ability to work the levers of national politics.
What this means is that he is less tied to some of the traditional bases of Democratic power than some of the other Democratic candidates Of course he will certainly owe many people many things, but it will likely be a lot less than many recent Presidents.
Is this a good thing? I think so. Although Sage Rat speaks of the important give and take in the political process, I have no doubt that Obama understands that system well from his background in Chicago politics. If he is elected without owing too many too much, he will be able to trade the political favors he develops under his own agenda, rather those he brings into the office based on his history. Having read his well thought out political views he published in his second book, I don’t think that he would govern by reactionary whim.
I would say that someone going in without having sworn fealty to many of the traditional power bases would be disturbing to those who trade in that traditional power. However, it is liberating to those who are bothered by the entrenched power bases and looking for someone to transcend them.
Indeed. I don’t think Obama will end up a lame duck. But the thing to consider is that it’s a lot more likely that he’s going the route of using citizen donations because he’s charismatic enough to make enough money doing that that he doesn’t need to indebt himself over the election. He can work himself into a position where he has a surplus of selling power by inflating his worth with non-player’s money.
That doesn’t mean he’s not playing the game (as you the OP would like), it means that he’s playing it on a level that most others can’t even attempt.
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html Eisenhower in his farewell speech ,warned us about the military,industrial complex. We ignored his warning and have not insulated our officials from being bought off by those corporations that make millions off war and war production. We have been at war pretty much endlessly. If we allow the special interests to pay our politicians campaigns ,they will owe them. It is way past time for public financing of elections and a shorter period of time for campaigning
Our campaigns as they presently stand ,run over 120 million dollars. That need will result in donations with hooks.
Oh please. You can’t honestly say that the majority of the populace weren’t all for starting all the various wars we’ve been in. There was no question in any American’s mind that after 9/11 some country or another was going to get their ass kicked. Just as there was no question that the Red Threat needed to be prevented from spreading into new countries. It’s only once Americans start dying that the war has to end and was “all the politicians’ doing” and a sign of the military, industrial complex.
I don’t get the Liberal myth that 99% of the US population is also all Liberals and if we just let them have the power and were able to get rid of the choke hold of that tiny 1% that we’d all turn into a vast Utopian, soft-Socialist Democracy of love and caring. Look at the voting numbers when we have two complete dud candidates for President. It comes out pretty exactly at 50/50 every time (e.g. 2000 and 2004 elections.) And look at the popularity rates of Presidents when they bomb the crap out of other countries (before land troops go in and get shot at.) Most people are white collar workers, in jobs they’re happy at. They’re not particularly pissed at the Man. They don’t view corporations as being evil tyrannies out to subjugate and push down the common man; they’re just places that make widgets and pay the bills. They don’t think that it’s wise to let bad people get away with bad things, and that talking it over and “understanding” the plight of the terrorists will fix things. Giving the people power instead of all the “evil” special interests groups isn’t going to change anything because 90% of all the things that the government does are done with the approval and by requirement of what the people want.
No, but he’s taking lots of money from big oil. from Factcheck.org:
In fact, only 30% of Obama’s funding comes from small donors. From the Chicago Tribune:
‘Bundling’ is a way of getting around campaign finance laws which limit the amount of money any individual can give. So ‘Bundlers’ give huge sums of money, usually in the names of the employees of their firm, or from other individuals associated with the bundler. It’s legal, but there are always big questions around it. For example, one of Obama’s bundlers is Kenneth Griffin, head of the Chicago-based hedge fund Citadel Investment Group LLC and among Mayor Richard Daley’s top financial patrons. He’s a billionaire worth 1.4 billion dollars. I’m sure he’d like to give a huge sum of money to Obama, but he can’t. So he bundled donations from employees of his company, to the tune of at least $169,000.
In terms of influence, does this really matter? The money came from a single source - a wealthy patron who can raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for you. That buys access at least as well as if he could just write the cheque himself, and maybe more so, because now all his employees have a stake as well.
This isn’t a knock on Obama (other than his disingenuous claim that his funding comes in small amounts from average Americans) - all politicians play this game. But don’t kid yourself that there’s anything new here. Campaigns require big money. So politicians look for support from where the big money is - the rich and powerful. Corporations are forbidden from donating, and campaign finance laws limit individual contributions to $2,300. Bundling, 527’s, $10,000 per plate dinners, and other mechanisms have evolved to get around these laws (or to work within them, as another way of looking at it.) Obama plays the game as well as anyone. Yes, he’s getting lots of grassroots support - more than anyone else, bu that’s merely why he has so much extra money. Without the grassroots, he’d still be out-raising McCain, and both of their sources would be mostly the rich and powerful.
You don’t get elected without owing somebody something. If you never take a dime, you still owe the millions of voters who put you into office (What? You think when a union encourages its members to vote for a candidate, it doesn’t expect some payback after the election? And the candidate is as obligated to deliver as his opponent who accepted a large donation from the CEO.)
Votes are not all that supporters give. Obama has collected plenty of money from people. Why are the donations he received any less obligating than the ones McCain or Clinton or Bush received?
And while Obama and McCain have both made a point of declaring their independance from special interests, neither has been as pure in their deeds are they are in their statements. Both have connections that they deny are special interests but would easily be defined as such by a non-partisan.