Political Corruption is an Equal Opportunity Vice
For the past two years the Democratic Party has been able to make a lot of gains by pointing to the bad behavior of Republicans – Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Ted Stevens. But Stevens may be the last of the Republicans to self-destruct for a while. At least until the Republicans get too self assured. For now, though that looks like the problem facing the Dems.
What a ride the past month has been. I’m sure the Kos Krowd is cheering the conviction of Ted Stevens, who got complacient and overlooked his bookkeeping. But they forgot that there were plenty of problems in their own house. William Jefferson, with the icebox full of cold cash lost the election, but reasonable people had been asking for some time why the media and the party seemed so uninterested by Jefferson’s behavior. And it wasn’t just Jefferson. He was really one of many. John Edwards’s dalliance was ignored by the media until the national Enquirer’s story was picked up by the Times of London, and then, grudgingly, the US media admitted that John Edwards wasn’t quite the model male, let alone model candidate that they had portrayed him to be. There have been questions about Charles Rangel’s finances for a while. The main members of the news media have tended to treat it as beneath their notice. New Yorkers haven’t pushed too hard, but perhaps they are taking their cue form the New York Times.
Neighboring New Jersey had its own scandal – the governor had to leave when it turned out he was putting his homoselxual lover ion charge of the state’s homeland security. I’ll give the Garden State some credit. Unlike Massachusetts, where there arre questions about Barney Frank’s friend’s involvement with Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. New Jersey folks seem to understand the concept of political corruption: Giving your lover’s friend a state job because he’s your lover’s friend, and not the best qualified applicant is dishonest. Especially if there is some expectation that maybe there will be some government contracts or other benefits sent your way.
Which brings us to Chicago, where politics has been a contact sport for over a century. ‘Polytics ain’t beanbag,’ said Mr. Dooley, the fictious Windy City saloon keeper. He was correct. Politics in Chicago has been a negotiable business for a long time, and Governor Blago is apparently the most recent of many politicians who has governed by trading political favors for cash or votes. The problem is, we aren’t talking about an alderman pocketing an envelope full of C-notes in return for a building permit. If the allegation is correct, we’re talking about selling a U.S. Senate seat. Not just any senate seat, but the one vacated by the President-Elect.
It seems to me there is a real need for the Democrats to study history carefully. I suggest they look very carefully at Watergate. What destroyed Nixon and sank the Gerald Ford was the lies and corruption of the Nixon administration’s dealings with the crime. The Democratic party needs to understand that no party is immune from corruption. That means it isn’t just a crime for Mark Foley and Larry Craig, and beneath notice when Jefferson or Blagojavich is accused of breaking the law.
This is where the Dems really need to walk the walk now that they’ve spent two years talking the talk. The claims to be a party of change, a party of clean governance need to be backed up with real, unmistakable change in the form of a house-cleaning. That means real investigations and real prosecutions of those indicted. I’d say that at a minimum, they need to encourage President Obama to re-appoint Fitzgerald, and ask him to get to the bottom of the Blagojavich matter. If the governor is deemed to be indictable, then he should be indicted, and prosecuted. Likewise, the Dems should insist on a real investigation of Charels Rangel’s finances, and again, if the evidence warrents an indictment and prosecution, that should move forward.
Right now there is every reason to take the President-Elect’s word that he has not been party to this business of trying to market his former Senate seat. That does mean, however, that Mr. Obama needs to be utterly transparent, and if that means someone associated with his campaign is dirty, they need to be held accountable. It is not the way he probably wants to start his term in opffice, and I am sorry if the historic nature of his inauguration may be shadowed by the behavior of his home state governor. But, if he wants to be successful, he needs to absolutely put the problems of the Democratic Party to rest. Fast.
A warning to the Republicans: There’s plenty of dirt to go around. I have no sympathy for Thomas ‘Cold Cash’ Jefferson. Or Ted Stevens, for that matter. But what the country needs right now is clean, efficient, honest government. You all need to recognize that with the world financial melt-down, fighting each other for short term election gains may be counter-productive if the entire economy collapses. So perhaps both parties should do what they should have done a long time ago. Get rid of the crooks in your midst.
I am not holding my breath waiting.
You’re forgetting Elliot Spitzer, the Democratic Governor of New York. There is always plenty of corruption to go around; but certain people see only what they want to see.
@John Rohan
Well, I really didn’t mean to overlook Elliot Spitzer. I just tried not to make this long post any longer than it already was. But you are correct. Spitzer’s case brings up more interesting issues. Such as why is it that the women’s movement, which is so prompt to condemn behavior which is merely boorish as sexist, (think Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings) but who say nothing about a guy like Spitzer – or Bill Clinton – tomcatting around. John Edwards was, alas, nothing new. Lots of politicians in both parties fall victim to the celebrity world-view, thinking they are entitled to mess around.
I’m waiting for the other shoe to drop. We know Blogojevich wanted to “sell” the seat. Now we need to hear if there we any “potential buyers” (i.e. folks who were willing to engage in the conversation). I’m especially interested in the Service Union’s response to nominating “their candidate” in exchange for some favors.
It seems to me that the best way to minimize the damage a corrupt pol can do is to enact – and enforce – term limits. NYC’s decision to do the former and override public’s will in regard to the latter should never have happened.
I’m still a bit dubious of term limits. Has anyone done a study looking at presence of term limits and effects on corruption.
PS Keep in mind that Blogojevich was re-elected. It seems that term limits are meant to protect us from our own stupidity. Hmmmm
I am unable to quickly find any empirical research directly on that point (perhaps because of difficulties in finding measurements for corruption and the relatively short time that term limits have been on the books in a significant number of cases), but there is one study that appears likely to offer a good argument on why term limits might generally decrease the quality of legislative representation:
* Elections as Filters: Term Limits and the Composition of the U. S. House
* Author(s): Jeffery J. Mondak
* Source: Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 48, No. 4 (Dec., 1995), pp. 701-727
* Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. on behalf of the University of Utah
* Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/448970
Abstract
Assessment of proposals to limit legislative terms has been restricted, and thus muddled, by a dearth of empirical data. Absent hard evidence, an abundance of often contradictory speculation has emerged, further clouding the term limits debate. This paper offers a simple mathematical model in an effort to construct a sound analytic framework for examination of the possible effects of terms limits on the composition of the U.S. House. The model treats elections as filters, or mechanisms with which voters strive to differentiate among candidates on the basis of quality. The analysis demonstrates that term limits will produce a substantial reduction in the quality of the U.S. House under baseline conditions. Terms limits also are associated with a decline in the quality of the House in a majority of alternative conditions, and the average magnitude of that decline is substantial.
Re: term limits
I don’t know that it would be possible to reliably measure their effect on corruption given the constraints imposed by our democratic system. Certainly it would not be quick or easy.
I think that the logic backing up the idea of term limits is along the lines of, in Congress longevity of office breeds power and power corrupts.
On the other hand there is no shortage of money seeking to corrupt politicians with pull and term limits would decrease the time required for pols to gain pull, making for a quicker game.
The best answers to corruption involve greater transparency. The roaches scatter when the light is turned on.
Term limits also force politicians to look toward careers after a known end point in Congress, thus potentially even increasing corruption as they (like Blagojevich) try to use their current office to set up their next job.
And transparency is a mixed blessing in a polarized political culture obsessed with finding devastating fault even out of benign incidents. This is what I think of whenever people demand more and more and more documentation about (for example) Obama’s citizenship status under the label of “transparency” — more data might assuage legitimate concerns but it also creates ample new opportunities for those who only want to cherry pick the data for pseudo-evidence of yet another elaborate conspiracy theory.
True.
True as well, but I prefer the good and bad of transparency over any alternative I can think of.
The Obama cert thing is not about transparency in any meaningful sense. The transparency was provided and the tin foil hat croud marches on. 9/11 and the events surrounding was less transparent, but certainly transparent enough for the truthers claims to be seen as obvious BS, yet the tin foil hats continue to march on. Whether their is complete opacity or complete transparency the conspiracy theorists will continue on unperturbed. At least with greater transparency their ridiculous claims become even more transparently false.