THE CASE FOR CORRUPTION
Regarding Josh's point, I did not mean to imply that the Watergate wave of Democratic victories caused the rise of Reaganism. My point was what Josh says; the disgrace of Nixon failed to stem the longer-term conservative realignment. And Nixon has gotten something of a rehabilitation. It's still a conservative country.
I know all about the polling data on how people favor more public services. I favor them too. Like everybody else, I'd like to avoid paying for them. Realignment means people clamoring for taxes to pay for an ample welfare state, the way they run to Best Buy to get that plasma TV. We can see glimmers of this in the states, where a few Republicans have turned into tax raisers, with limited success. In Virginia, the Dems are holding the governor's office after the tax-friendly tenure of Mark Warner. California you all know about.
But anti-tax sentiment remains. Next door to me in Prince George's County, Maryland, we learn this morning from the Washington Post of a spiking murder rate. "PG" as it is known locally is dominated politically by a very liberal, African-American middle class. But it remains captive to tax limitation measures that prevent it from raising the revenue it needs to pay for adequate public services and schools you would want to send your kids to. In Alabama, African-Americans rejected a tax increase crafted decisively in favor of low-income families, apparently because they didn't trust the Republican governor who proposed it.
In my previous note I said I'd prefer a dishonest, effective social-democrat to a clean centrist. Some commenters said we need both. Well sure. If we had ham we could have ham and eggs, if only we had eggs.
Whether they do good or bad, politicians in the U.S. usually come pretty cheap. Mobutu stole multi-billions. Tom DeLay got some golf trips. The Federal budget is over two trillion dollars. It doesn't take much of that to set someone for life.
What matters most is what these characters do to the rest of us. I will enjoy the disgrace of DeLay and company as much as anyone. But what I'm really interested in is how a resurgent Democratic caucus is going to legislate.
I claim the right to be as hypocritical as the Republicans, who impeached Clinton for doing the nasty but are oblivious to high crimes from the Bushists. By all means send DeLay to jail, but don't wake me up if you find a Democrat involved in the same kind of thing. (And you know you will.) I don't care.
Max, this is like 1994, not 1974, especially if corruption is the issue. Let's start with this quote from a piece by Ari Berman (link):
Republicans won in 1994 by promising to solve a problem that they have made even worse than it once was. Consider this quote from an Elizabeth Drew piece:
And let's not forget the K Street Project, which is all about helping Republicans and driving out all Democrats. This is much more of a problem for them than for the few Dems who might be involved. Read the rest at my diary here.
January 2, 2006 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I find this rather confusing.
Most Americans don't want to pay high taxes. But most Americans want services. So, most people would like to have their cake, and eat it, too.
Since 1980, the Republican party has argued that when it comes to taxes, everyone can have their cake, and eat it too. The message has been that government taxes go to support the military and poor black people. They have said that if we cut taxes, the only people who will suffer are poor black people--and they won't suffer that much, because we'll have growth that will make life better for everyone and replace the lost tax revenue for the programs that support poor black people.
This isn't true. But it doesn't matter, because in the course of public debate we treat it like it's true--this is presented as a valid policy option. People don't get laughed out of the public square when they say such things.
And so, when given the option of a free lunch or a paid lunch, a surprising number of Americans favor a free lunch. It appears that middle class African Americans want a free lunch as much as anyone else does, and shock of the world, poor African Americans in Alabama don't trust a white Republican governor. In other news, Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.
Today's conservatism isn't a victory for those who favor smaller government. It's a victory for those who believed you could still get Americans to buy snake oil. You've got one party saying you can't have your cake and eat it, and the other party saying you can have your cake, you can eat it, and also you can have a pony! Shockingly, the guys with the ponies win.
January 2, 2006 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
These I think, are what makes us different. Before 1974, Republicans were seen as opponents. Now in 2006, they are seen as threatening the Republic and dare I say it, the world?
Hyperbole? Well... considering the constitutional violations, K-street project, corruption, exacerbation on international crisis, ignoring the ultimate danger climate change... I'd say there is a pretty big threat.
January 2, 2006 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
The difference between the corupt and corruptible is in the who is doing it to who and how! America is being run by big industry and big money with very tempted politicians both sides of the isle. With this mixture the poor are getting poorer and rich are gaining more of what they already have. Does this mean I am a liberal? No it means I am a realist who understands the difference when that glass is half empty or half full. And knows when the corrutible opens its mouth it is merely demonstrating on how they have either been corrupted or are corrupting ohers! In the end no one wins and not only does the US lose because it is corrupt but world losses because we Americans have lost our moral path for the sake of the party and for the sake of what we can get!
Today the power of the current GOP leadership proves the point that power corrupts and it corrupts completely!
January 2, 2006 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Couldn't all of this corruption be eliminated if businesses were forbidden to contribute anything towards the election of anyone, or even to contribute anything to any non-business activity? There is no inherent reason why a business has a right to tamper with our elections, and that is what they are doing. (No one should be allowed any part in our elections unless he is a qualified voter.) Businesses should also be prohibited from lobbying government employees or elected officials. The only legitimate use of lobbying should be official, on the record, testimony to committees. Guess how far we would get if we proposed this to Congress?
January 2, 2006 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
It doesn't matter. You'd lose in the courts even if you won in Congress.
January 2, 2006 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
It doesn't matter. You'd lose in the courts even if you won in Congress.
Ok, I guess I will just lay here and try to enjoy it. I haven't yet, but if I put my mind to it, think about Hawaiian beaches, use an ipod, just relax........
January 2, 2006 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't forbid it, tax it. Set the rate high, say 100%
January 2, 2006 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is very easy, perhaps even human nature, to look back and see that whatever it was that happened was somehow inevitable or that irresistable historical forces made things be that way. I think that this is where Calvinism came from - whatever happened was "meant to be" because of forces larger than ourselves.
What we shouldnt forget is that if things had turned out differently, we would be citing THOSE things as inevitable and as evidence of some entirely different long range political or social trend.
Sometimes there really are long term forces that dominate, reassert or otherwise determine what happens. However, history and society arent as deterministic as all that - Calvin was wrong. Sometimes shit just happens.\
Regarding the case in point I have a thought experiment for you. What if Bobby Kennedy never got shot, and became President. Suppose he became the most enlightened and wonderful president in history, the one we all hoped he would be in our dreams. Would things have turned out the way they did? Would we have had the conservative long term trend that we did or if so, would it have ended up where we are now? I dont think so. I think we would have taken a drastically different fork in the road and be in some other county entirely.
Similarly with the current President. If Al Gore had shown a little more spine - if whatever needed to happen for him to win had happened, wouldnt history look mighty different by now? We would be in the fourth term in a row of Democratic leadership and NOBODY would be talking about "long term conservative trends"
January 3, 2006 7:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Which is why RFK's assassination coming on the night it became clear that he clearly clinched the Democratic nomination was so crucial.
January 3, 2006 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink