I am always saddened when I read about our political system
being corrupted. But I am downright annoyed by the frequent portrayals of such
corruption. It is almost always a discussion of how a political figure is
corrupt, mainly because he or she (but it’s almost always a HE) accepted money
in some quid pro quo arrangement to facilitate some business deal. Two things:
1.
First, mainly the reports portray corruption in
terms of downright bribes—you give me $100,000 and I will assure that you get
your . . . whatever.
2.
Second, the portrayals almost always give us
mainly a picture of the corruptee—the pol, as distinct from the corrupter—the
bidness person.
I think the time has come to begin correcting that image.
Again, two things:
1.
When we discuss corruption, perhaps the least
destructive form is the bribe, a specific quid pro quo arrangement in which a
bidness person offers a financial payment to an official who agrees in exchange
to take some action benefiting the bidness person. Damaging, yes. But even more
profoundly corrupting is the system by which wealthy folks, or maybe wealthy
corporate “persons” (those fake people dreamed up by Tony and the Supremes)
donate very large sums of money to campaigns or to parties in exchange for smiles
from the politicians, who will later rule in their favor at every opportunity—Sheldon
Adelson, the Koch brothers, come to mind here.
2.
And note that we need to always discuss
corruption as a two-way street. We have government being corrupted and bidness
doing the corrupting. So, it is not, as
portrayed by the GOP that we have a system of government strangling the poor
honest business people of the world. Rather, we have a system in which very
rich dishonest bidness persons locate dishonest government persons and connect
to produce a government system in which only the wealthy win.
We really need to revisit this entire subject. Government
regulation, for example, exists for what purpose? Well, all regulations exist
to rein in the worst instincts of otherwise unfettered commercial folks.
Perhaps the most prominent form of regulation that bidness persons hate (see
the Cocks) is the sets of rules aimed at preserving the environment, which
includes the air we breathe and the water we drink. Left to themselves, folks
like the Koch’s will destroy the land, water and air if it is needed to make them
more money. They simply do not care. So, we have to rein them in. Similarly, although
we no longer seem to care about monopolies, we used to think that competition
is good and that too large is bad, because it reduces competition. Look at
banks and you will know we no longer care. My view is, if it’s too big to fail,
it’s too big to exist. That would
include banks, auto makers, Internet service providers, or health care systems.
As we head towards a world in which we
will have one shop (Wal-Mart) one bank (your guess) one ISP (again, your guess)
I think we need folks representing us in the government who are willing to
challenge the notion that bigger is better. It never is.
I should note that the last statement would produce a
counter from the right that, “well government is too big, so maybe we should
break it up.” I would counter that there
is no notion of competition in the realm of government. Government is as big or as small as we the
people wish to make it. It may well be the case that we need to revisit the
concept of government structure as it continues to grow. Perhaps we need new
forms or new structures to more effectively and efficiently manage our public
affairs. It may be, for example, that we
should examine the concept of regional structures, akin to the old Appalachian
Regional Commission. We definitely need to re-examine the manner in which our
federal Congressional representatives oversee the work of government. My
overall impression is that much of government oversight, as played out in
Congress is simply a bad political joke. They pretend to oversee and we pretend
that they have done their job if the Faux News Network, or Wolf Blitzer
provides enough coverage on TV. Mainly,
Congress isn’t in the problem-solving game. They are told about a problem by
someone who is paying attention, they hold a hearing, and then they throw money
at the problem. Hearings are held to
determine that the problem is alive and well and they should continue throwing
money at it.
So, yes, we do need to examine the structure of government and
how we employ government to solve problems. Perhaps our most grievous fault in
applying government to solve problems is in the area of war and peace. We love
to throw a war at folks with whom we disagree. But rarely is war a reasonable
solution. Mainly, it just pisses off the folks with whom we become involved,
often our ‘friends” and our “enemies”—sometimes you can’t tell one from the
other without a program—see Pakistan.
But this all leads me back to one of
my earlier blogs—one on the need to maintain balance. What kind of balance?
Well, two kinds. First, we need political balance between republicans and
democrats. Single party control always
eventually leads to tyranny (Supremes take note). Second, we need serious
balance between government and commerce. We need a healthy commercial sector
because that produces economic health. But we need a healthy government because
that government can protect us from our own worst instincts.
What I said then was in the form of an
open letter to our incoming President Obama. It read in part:
1.
In economic matters, extremes do not work. Under Bush, we
shifted dangerously in the direction of a fascist state—that is, a state in
which private owners of businesses dictate government policies. The inevitable
result is Enron, et al, as well as the collapsed financial system. We have been
drifting in that direction for quite some time now, even under Clinton.
Everyone has been so concerned with government regulation that they failed to
notice that unregulated business is as dangerous as unchecked government. One
gives you fascism; the other socialism. Private business interests must always
be checked to assure that the public is protected. So too must government
overseers. Balance in everything is the answer. But balance requires mental
agility. The public has little patience—they want the world to operate on
autopilot. They need to be convinced that a world in which competing interests
are balanced is both an efficient world, and a world that is worthy.
2.
We need to pay for what we need. The Republican Party has been,
almost as a matter of policy, fiscally irresponsible. They practice “charge and
spend” politics. We will now have to pay for their profligacy. The public—the
thinking public—needs to understand that we cannot continue on the course they
charted and followed. Mainly the rest of the world will not allow us to
continue on this course. They will simply stop buying our debt and then it will
end, badly. Taxes are the way we pay for our policies. Taxes are neither good nor bad, in the
abstract. They represent the price of operating our country, or, perhaps, the
glue of a civilized society.
3.
We must pursue policies that are aimed at preserving the Earth.
We need to conserve. We need to pursue alternative energy policies. We need to
use economic forces to create a demand for energy-efficiency and energy
independence. Under Bush and Cheney, we have pursued policies promoting
wasteful energy consumption, mainly because he and his advisers represent the
extractive industries. We need to tax wasteful energy consumption, so as to
encourage wiser use of Earth’s limited resources.
4.
We must pursue a policy of economic independence for all our
citizens. During my career, I worked for seven organizations over a 45 year
career. For 20 of those years, I worked for several large and small companies
that contributed nothing beyond Social Security for my retirement. Bush and his
republican allies have attempted on numerous occasions to threaten that
reserve. If indeed we wish to get rid of Social Security, we do not need to
“privatize” it. We need to pass legislation that forces every economic entity
in the country to pay into a portable retirement system. TIAA-CREF comes to
mind—the system used by most universities and non-profits. If the private
sector would begin to live up to its responsibilities by a mandatory
contribution system, we would not need Social Security. Take the system used by
universities and non-profits and replicate it throughout the whole of the
private sector. Do not allow companies to wriggle out by use of part-time
workers. If they employ part-time workers, they still pay full retirement
benefits. Otherwise, leave Social security alone.
5.
Republicans, continue in their zeal to scuttle public education.
We need to begin working with the states to repair the currently deplorable
state of public education. In our area of North Carolina, they seem comfortable
with a dropout rate of 35%. Think of
that. We can do better. Indeed, we are losing ground to the rest of the world,
and we are at risk of becoming a country of stupid people. Charter schools, especially for-profit charter
schools, and worse, fake private schools that are on-line, are not an answer.
6. We must examine carefully the structure of government. The
creation of the Department of Homeland Security was an absurd idea—a solution
in search of a problem. Think of it. The CIA and the FBI wouldn’t communicate
and were demonstrably inept, so we forced the Coast Guard, FEMA, and the rest
to become one entity. An idea only a truly stupid person could embrace. Structure is not the answer when the problem
is an absence of thoughtful consideration of available evidence.
There were a few other points that need not be repeated
here. What we continue to need is watchful citizens—citizens who are willing to
question both private commercial interests and public government interests.
Corruption is a problem that will always be with us, so long as we have serious
economic imbalances and so long as we have citizens who are basically dishonest—remember
both the corrupters and the corruptees are dishonest. Both need to be exposed and punished. It is
why, by the way, that we continue to need whistle-blowers. Say what you will of the
Assange-Manning-Snowden groups, but they have informed us of some very
unpleasant things about ourselves. Transparency is key here, and we definitely
do not have transparent systems in either the public or private realms (thanks
again Supremes).
We all need to stand up and be counted. And that means we
need to vote, regardless of the efforts by the GOP to prevent folks from
voting. If you don’t vote, you will get
the government you deserve.
