Politicians: Helplessly corrupt?

It’s not something I’ve thought through to any extent nor is it high on my list of things to worry about, but it doesn’t seem unreasonable to me to argue that if the wealthy contribute disproportionately to the country’s wellbeing, then they should wield disproportionate influence as well. Since the wealthy contribute disproportionately to the health of the country’s economy, I think it’s pretty clear that the rich do contribute disproportionately to the country’s wellbeing.

Whether their influence is commensurate with the benefits they provide is an entirely separate question.

Nice! I expected that in your response.

The short answer is YES. The longer answer is: you’ve asked an invalid question. There is on “should”, only what “is”. I don’t mean to go Yoda on you, but the fact that “the rich” can afford more air time is a simple consequence of a free, capitalist society.

I think this is wrong. As I pointed out earlier, “the rich” will just find other ways of exerting their influence. These other ways will then become a key part of getting elected, just as direct political endorsement adds are today.

In your other thread you advocated a certain amount of defference to what was pracitcal and grounded in the real world. Can you offer up an example of a country that has implemented your plan successfully? If not, how is this not a narrow application of a few dogmatic principles…

obviously that was supposed to be “there is no should”, not “there is on should”.

Jeremy Paxman’s The Political Animal asks similar questions about the motives for (British) men and women to become politicians. The main answer he can come up with is ambition, often driven by particular family circumstances or traditions. “Ambition” is left pretty vaguely defined, but he seems to think it’s that politicians want to be wanted; there’s no greater validation than having large numbers of complete strangers voting you into a position of power. Electing a politician is granting them a place in the world and a feeling of significance.

Aren’t you assuming that the wealthy are contributing to the nation’s well-being, though? I mean, there’s no direct correlation between “being wealthy” and “keeping the economy running,” AFAIK. Not saying it doesn’t happen, but if Bill Gates wanted to take all his money and stick it under a mattress somewhere, nobody is going to break into his house and issue him a subpoena to start spreadin’ the loot, knowwhutImean?

The politicians of America are largely corrupt, for two main reasons:
-they have become a hereditary class-look at the degenerate Kennedy clan, for example-they bought a house seat (D-RI) for Patrick Kennedy, who is a low-grade moron.His father , Senator Ted Kennedy,is a 7-term senator-something that would make the founding fathers blanche!
-The legalindustry (the "third branch of government) has become immensely powerful. Judges regularly trample upon the constitution, and abridge our rights regularly. YOU have NO defense against this!
How to fix things? TERM LIMITS!!

BG:

Under your proposed system, can I:

  1. Run for office and spend my own money on compaign ads? (Say hello to Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry!)

  2. Buy a T-shirt for Kucinich that say “Vote for D.K.”?

2a. Can I pay him $100 for the T-shirt? How about $10,000?

  1. Pay for TV ads that say “Republicans want to do X” and “Democrats want to do Y”, if I don’t mention any candidate by name? Can I put in the TV ad that: “X is bad, but Y is good”

3a. Can I do #3 if I say “Some politicians” instead of “Republicans” and “Democrats”?

  1. Can I buy D.K. a nice suit? Can I fly him in my private jet to Iowa or New Hampshire?

It’s not like Bill Gates woke up one morning and discovered he had instantly become super rich despite not doing anything, though. You may not like his business practices, but he IS a businessman, after all.

So when I say that the wealthy contribute to the economy, I’m not talking about their personal expenditures (which are undoubtedly a pretty trivial component of the country’s economic wellbeing). Instead, I’m talking about the businesses they run, the investments they make, and so on.

I would disagree.

I usually don’t vote, for one simple reason: neither candidate is one I would like to see in office.

I see my vote as representing a person I’d like to see in office, not the one that’s only marginally less inept than his competitor. If it’s a choice between the lesser of two evils, I feel that the only moral choice is not to choose. It’s not that I’m lazy, or that I feel my vote will be wasted. I simply don’t feel that anyone deserves it.

Unfortunately, it seems as if Ficus isn’t running in 2004. Damn shame.

Posted by John Mace:

Good question, and I don’t have an answer. I don’t know anything about campaign-financing systems in foreign countries – I don’t even know whether American-style private funding is the norm or an exception. I’ll try to find out.

  1. No.

  2. Yes.

2a. Maybe, but why would he charge that much? What does he need the money for?

  1. Yes.

3a. Yes.

  1. Sure, why not? If he accepts the invitation. I very much doubt he’ll end the trip feeling beholden to you, and that’s the important thing.

Posted by ralph12C4:

Apart from a very few very prominent families such as the Bushes and the Kennedys, “politicians” as such do not form a hereditary or quasi-hereditary caste in the U.S. today. Much less of a caste, to be sure, than it was in the Founding Fathers’ day, when the “political class” was much smaller and every prominent state or national politician in the country knew every other. (Remember also that at least half the Founders were Southern aristocrats, and to them, it was only in the proper nature of things, even in a republic, that certain families should have a prescriptive right to hold important public offices, generation after generation.) If there is any problem here, it is that practically all successful politicians in America today are drawn from the same social class, what Michael Lind has identified as the White Overclass. That gives them all a certain commonality of outlook which is not necessarily consistent with the best interests of other classes.

As for the “legal industry,” remember that every court case has a lawyer on each side. Certainly all lawyers have some common interests as a profession and can be expected, for instance, to join ranks against “tort reform.” But on no other matters do all lawyers think with one mind nor speak with one voice. Whenever some lawyer is trying to “trample” on your rights, another lawyer will be there to defend them.

Term limits? What good are term limits? We the voters would merely be restricting our own freedom of choice. I think what you’re getting at is that you want to eliminate professional, career politicians as a distinct occupational category. Which would be a very bad idea. Government is a complicated business and we need experienced professionals running it, not amateurs! You seem to be infected with the ludicrous Jeffersonian-Jacksonian idea that any man can do any public job, and that is not true. Ideally we should have a society where our politicians are drawn from all social classes; but there’s nothing wrong with any one of them following government as a career in itself.

Just wanted to say that IMO term limits and elections for judges is a bad idea, since it means judges must pander themselves to the electorate, instead of making decisions which may be legally correct but locally unpopular.

Electing judges is certainly no guarantee of judicial quality or competency – just look at Roy Moore, for gosh sakes. :wink:

BG:

I’ve made two arguments against limits on campaign spending. 1)Violation of the 1st Amendment, and 2) It is impossible to accomplish w/o draconian restrictions on freedom.

#1 is a well established judicial precident, and I don’t think you and I will ever agree on that matter, so it’s probably fruitless to debate it. I’ll agree to disagree with you and move on.

Which brings me to #2, and which is what inspired me to come up with the list of questions for you. Assuming Lind’s plan, why won’t it just be the case that wealthy individuals wishing to influence the electorate (or buy influence with a candidate) will channel their money into the other avenues open to them? And I’ve only scratched the surface on the ways money can flow to candidates w/o paying for candidate endorsing ads. It’s the whole soft money issue writ larger since “hard money” is disallowed.

Instead of ads paid for by Bush (or his proxies) attacking the Dem candidate directly, the money goes to ads attacking Democrats “in general”. You have the exact same system you have today, except you never actually hear a candidate’s name (but everyone will know exactly to whom the ads are referring).

BTW, I agree with you on term limits. I’m against them for the same reason you are-- they restrict freedom. It’s as if the voters are saying “Save us from ourselves. We can’t resist voting for the same bums every election.”

Posted by John Mace:

All true, all true, but it would still be better than what we’ve got now – because we would have broken the direct linkage between big campaign contributions and election results. We would have eliminated the “wealth primary”. An individual candidate whose politics are hostile to the corporate interests would have to campaign in an environment where the corporations do everything they can to keep their message in the public eye – but at least he doesn’t need direct corporate support before he can mount an effective campaign. The odds might be stacked against him, but he has the same opportunity his pro-corporate opponent has to put his own message before the voters – same amount of air time, etc. And that really would make a beneficial difference.

Posted by g8rguy:

Umm . . . but why? Assuming the wealthy do contribute greatly to our society – why should that contribution entitle them to disproportionate political influence? We don’t give extra votes to inventors or war heroes or any of the people who make special contributions to society; they might get an enhanced reputation that will make people willing to listen to them, but that’s all. And that’s nothing like the kind of influence the rich have over our government. Furthermore, just because the wealthy know how to make money, that doesn’t mean they know how to make political decisions that are the best for everybody; and it certainly doesn’t mean they want to make political decisions that are the best for everybody. For the most part, the rich exercise their political power to advance their own material interests. You seem to be saying they have a right to do just that.

On a fairness level, it seems to me that if I do vastly more for you than Bob does, you should do somewhat more for me than you do for Bob. On a more practical level, it is surely in society’s best interests to ensure that those who can do most for it are at least content. If we enacted laws tomorrow that eliminated the wealthy as a politically powerful group, I wonder how long we would keep the wealthy satisfied. And if everyone who counted as wealthy were to leave the country and take all their assets with them, we’d be in dire shape indeed.

This is not to say that what’s good for the wealthy is necessarily good for all of us, of course. It is to suggest that what’s catastrophic for the wealthy may be catastrophic for all of us, however.

Indeed; and thus they exert influence disproportionate to their numbers. Why would the wealthy be any different?

In which sense? I suggest that the rich have more influence than the inventors because the rich do more than inventors. If, instead, you mean that the form of influence that the wealthy exert is different from the form of interest that the intellectual exert, well… so what?

Perhaps you are confusing me for someone who would argue with this. Allow me to unconfuse you. :slight_smile:

Of course they have a right to have their own self-interest foremost in mind. So do you. So does everyone else. You aren’t seriously suggesting otherwise, are you?

Note, by the way: my original post was only a suggestion of lines along which an argument could perhaps be made, and should not be confused with the argument itself. This isn’t something I’ve really ever worried about, so expecting a fully-fleshed out argument may be a bit unwise.

  1. Yes, I believe a great number of honest men and women enter politics. Yes, the political process tends to corrupt in general, but not necessarily everyone.

  2. I believe most politicians put the interests of the people first. They simply differ widely on what those interests are.

Of course, not many are truly altruistic. The congress just voted itself a pay raise, after all. :rolleyes:

  1. Yup. Like previously said, Mr Kucinich is a tireless crusader. As was Mr Wellstone. As is Mr McCain.

On a side note, perhaps stemming from the idealism of youth, I intend to become a politician one day. I’d like to think that, when I finally do, I would remain, as you would say, an honest man. God knows we can never have too many honest men running the country.

I still believe that politicians serve too long…as i mentioned, Kennedy is perhaps the most flagrant example-how on earth can a seven-term senatorNOT be corrupt? The US Senate is also the most entrenched body in the world-the British House of Lords has more turnover! The House is almost as bad…I recall a remark made by the late Tip O’Neil (late speaker of the House, and long-time crook/tyrant). He said something to the effect that “the people don’t know how to govern themselves, it’s up to us to do it for them”- a remark worthy of King Louis XVI !
Politicians should serve two terms, and then retire to whatever they did before. This country does NOT need an entrenched political class!

Of course this country needs an entrenched political class, ralph. Every country does. Show me one republic that has found a way to get along without a class of specialized, career politicians.

Regarding the relationship between the “political class” (an occupational category, really) and the “white overclass,” here is another enlightening passage from Lind’s TNAN,, pp. 141-143:

(Bolding added.) As Lind says, every society will have an institutional elite, and the “political class” is merely a subcategory of that elite. The problem is not that our institutional elite exists, but that it is dominated by a single social class, whose interests are not necessarily in harmony with the interests of other classes.

I don’t find Lind’s “white overclass” very convincing. Firstly, it’s so broadly defined as to be almost meaningless. Secondly, it surely cuts across Republican and Democratic lines*, and he cavalierly excludes the so-called “leisure rich” as being “detached from the summits of power”, but doesn’t explain how the Seatle middle manager at Microsoft is more “attached” to that summit.

And I see no reason that upper class and upper middle class minorities are not also part of the same subculture-- going to the same fancy restuarants, seeing the same movies, reading the same books, etc.

*Unless he brings out the tired old bit about the two parties being one and the same.