Republicans would probably do better if so many weren't liars and hypocrites

[overtone]

My guess is that one’s opinion on the magnitude and frequency of political corruption has more to do with the perceived motive of the perpetrator or their party. If one sees a particular politician or party as “good” and the other party as “bad” then their opinion is that the magnitude and frequency of corruption is less for the “good” politician or party. It’s all smoke and mirrors.

The only people who believe that its all equivalent smoke and identical mirrors are the ones who voted for somebody like W&Cheney or Rod Blagojevich and don't want to face the implications of that.

 

The smoke and mirrors are coming from the people who want to think something like sending the nation to war for the benefit of their corporate support and connections is equivalent to earmarking an extra ten thousand in highway funds for the home district - because they dont' want to admit they got suckered that badly.

 

Not seeing that quantitative and qualitative differences in corruptionexist between individual politicians removes all possibility of consequences from their calculations. That failure is a failure of one's duty as an adult citizen of a democratic republic.

 

 

 

There's no such thing as republicans and democrats anymore. Just millionaires.

That situation is partly a consequence of voters being persuaded that "they're all corrupt anyway, what difference does it make". Sometimes voters even take obvious corruption as a sign of competence, of realism - the principle that the Mob running Chicago at least got the potholes fixed, or that the Fascists got the trains running on time in Italy. Fantasy, but it's hard to get people to see that - they aren't going to actually look at the on time records of Italian trains under Mussolini (they got worse, not better), or catalogue the actual problems with mob run Chicago.

 

Seriously: everyone knew that of the four major candidates standing for the White House in 2000, Cheney was the most corrupt, W was second. So who do we blame for the consequences of electing them?

 

 

 

There's probably a better way to more objectively define and measure corruption in this context.

You could try these guys - not an approach good for individual politicians, but a decent start: http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2012/

Edited July 30, 2013 by overtone

[CharonY]

 

 

Volumes and amounts could be a decent proxy, yes, but I have to agree a bit with waitforufo... It's really all quite subjective. Not all donations are bad, nor are all large donations. Further, donations themselves are not really evidence of corruption. Where we draw those lines when performing such measures would very much be a personal and subjective decision. What is seen as corrupt by me might very well be seen as ethical and acceptable to you, and vice versa.

 

There's probably a better way to more objectively define and measure corruption in this context. I know it has to exist, and I suspect something is probably in use already by modern day political scientists and in the journals where they publish. I just don't personally know what it is.

 

These are pretty much my feelings, too. Things like blatant lies and hypocrisy are relatively easy to spot, but corruption is quite a different matter. Moreover, I suspect the entanglement between influential groups and politics is so tight that many things that one may perceive as corrupt are commonplace and in fact part of the normal policy-making process.

 

When comes to this I would also assume that the depth of entanglement does likely correlate with political influence rather than party, as one is dependent on the other to a large extent.

[overtone]

Moreover, I suspect the entanglement between influential groups and politics is so tight that many things that one may perceive as corrupt are commonplace and in fact part of the normal policy-making process.

When corruption is so entrenched that it is part of the normal dealmaking process, that means one's government is more - not less - corrupt.

 

The current deregulation of corporate spending on political campaigns, for example (Citizen's United ruling), has unleashed a wave of corruption in American politics. The fact that it's now normal, where before it was a hidden felony level crime, does not change that.

 

 

 

What is seen as corrupt by me might very well be seen as ethical and acceptable to you, and vice versa

I doubt that situation is really all that common among voters, regular citizens. Pretty much everyone agrees, for example, that a State governor attempting to sell nomination to the US Senate to the highest cash bidder is doing something seriously wrong. On the matter of whether it is OK to use the influence of the Vice Presidency to arrange for lucrative contracts to be written so as to favor the military contractor in which one owns stock options, or even let without bid to said contractor, how many doubters are there really?

 

The bias and "subjectivity" comes into play more in what one believes happened, than in the evaluation of that event.

Edited July 30, 2013 by overtone

[doG]

It's not just the republicans. They're all a bunch of liars. The fact that they write legislation that affects us and not them should be the first sign that they're up to no good. Wake up America, your representation is excessively diluted and what's there is only interested in representing themselves!

[CharonY]

While we are discussing that in terms of US government, I am pretty sure that pretty much the same is true for basically all governments. Strong networks are the basis of power, but also of corruption.

[Phi for All]

While I think that far too many legislators vote in a way that is engineered to support special interests while seeming to represent the People's wishes, what I don't like about the Republican approach is waving their hands about vital regulation while simultaneously preaching free market concepts like competition AND trying to broker a deal that will get preferable legislation passed for their corporate supporters. If you want to defend the free market, stop passing special interest legislation. If you want fewer regs, stop spending so much money trying to duck them.

 

This may be simply confirming my bias, but when I think about the changes for the worse that have occurred in the last 30 years, the downturned economy, the fear that seems to drive the average American, the cheap meanness that seems to dictate how employees are treated by corporations, the inability to trust the news media to inform us in a meaningful way, the blockage of proven medical techniques such as stem cell research and national health programs, the underfunding of our children's educations, the gutting of federal regulatory agencies, it all points to the Republicans for me. I know the Dems have done many bad things too (I'll happily blame Clinton for the telecommunications sell-out), but the Republicans seem to come up with the most bizarre combinations of religious zeal, corruption, hypocrisy and mixed messages.

 

Perhaps it's just that I dislike hearing terms like conservative and liberal batted around, when there are very few people who are ever just one way or the other. Conservative shouldn't mean "afraid to move" and liberal shouldn't mean "open to anything". Smart is being conservative or liberal when circumstances call for it. No one should consider themselves only a liberal or a conservative about everything.

[waitforufo]

I appreciate that corruption in government is frustrating. That’s especially true for those actively interested in the government providing solutions to problems. However, let’s face it, this situation is the same as it always was, and the same as it always will be. That is why the founders of our country set up our divided branches of government with checks and balances. That system is frustrating in itself, particularly in the slowness in which things get done, but has been show to keep corruption in check and the people in power. Obviously a dictator could get things done more quickly but I don’t think any of us would be happy with the result.

Perhaps the work and social circles the rest of you participate in are different than mine. Most of the people I interact with have no interest in politics. The impression I get from those I interact with is that they vote for is based on the following reasons.

1) They vote for a party like they root for a sports team. They have no idea what a candidate stands for, but will vote for them as long as they are wearing the right jersey.

2) If things aren’t going well for them personally, they simply vote out incumbents.

3) If the media demonizes a candidate or party enough, they vote against that person or party, regardless of the truth of the mud slung.

Item three causes the most problems in the modern area because of speed of communication. The other two mostly average out.

Finally, I think iNow needs to raise his opinion from millionaires to billionaires. Millionaires are a dime a dozen these days and have no influence. I have two brothers who are retired public school teachers. Both are in their mid 50's. If you count the present value of their pensions with their other assets not including their homes they are both millionaires.

One edit to the above. While I say item three causes most of the problems, I believe few people pay attention to the media. People who get caught up in the 24 hour news cycle tend to think everyone else is as well. Few people even pay attention to such nonsense. The “news” is just like any other form of entertainment. They try to get you hooked so they can sell you soap. They also sell their programming so there ratings go up allowing them to charge more to the soap manufacturers. They don’t care about the truth, just selling soap.

[overtone]

While we are discussing that in terms of US government, I am pretty sure that pretty much the same is true for basically all governments.

No. It wasn't even like this in the US government until fairly recently - I've seen this roll in my adult lifetime - and there are many governments with significantly lower levels of corruption than Reagan's America. Canada, for starters - not that they don't have their problems, but Halliburton and Goldman Sachs type operations isn't one of them.

 

However, let’s face it, this situation is the same as it always was, and the same as it always will be.

Bullshit. Utter crapola distributed by amnesiacs, profiteers excusing themselves, and corporate rightwing propagandists with an agenda impossible to defend in daylight.

 

Just one - one of many - example: Thirty years ago the majority - the dollar majority - of the political campaign spending in the past election would have been felony level crime. Bribery. The central core event of the term "corruption". It hasn't magically become not bribery. It's just become legal, and quintupled in size, and taken to walking around openly on the public street with its hairy Limbaugh ass and shiny Blankfein fangs hanging out for all the kiddies to see.

 

We don't have to allow this. Our grandparents didn't allow this. It's perfectly possible to rise up in outrage and toss out the bums and clean house. It's been done before. But you have to admit what happened, and how - you can't go around waving your hands and mouthing the words "both sides", pretending the orcs aren't inside the gates and you didn't let them in. You got scammed, taken, robbed, boned up the wazoo and photos on the internet, by organized long con artists playing on your racism and meanness and ignorance and laziness and greed, telling you these defects of character were really patriotism and love of freedom and family values and religious virtue and common sense. And you knew better, underneath. Step one is admitting that.

 

"You were sick, but now you're well: and there's work to be done"

Edited July 30, 2013 by overtone

[CharonY]

 

 

No. It wasn't even like this in the US government until fairly recently - I've seen this roll in my adult lifetime - and there are many governments with significantly lower levels of corruption than Reagan's America. Canada, for starters - not that they don't have their problems, but Halliburton and Goldman Sachs type operations isn't one of them.

 

But doesn't that lead back to the issue of how to quantify corruption? I.e. how much is perception and how is really quantifiable?

The closest thing I could find is the corruption perceptions index, in which the US is ranked 19, which is close to the UK and Japan (17) but higher than France (22). If we used that values it is not that outlandishly different, but unfortunately the data collection only started 1996 http://www.transparency.org/cpi2012/results.

 

It is certainly true that Canada (and Australia, as well as many Nordic countries) are ranked higher, but then it goes again to the question how much is the difference, really?

[overtone]

 

 

But doesn't that lead back to the issue of how to quantify corruption?

Maybe later, when we have time.

 

Right now, for example, you've got a system that has newly been changed so that it allows - actually, requires - every politician running for a national or key State office to seek out and accept large amounts of bribe money from a small number of anonymous wealthy corporate sources with concealed motives. The degree to which some particular politician has been corrupted by that situation this year compared with two years ago is beside the point, frankly.

 

Look: I'm sure the question of whether this is 1.2, 1.7, 2.1, maybe even 2.8 times as corrupt as the previous situation - in which seeking out and accepting such bribe money was a felony crime and an impeachable offense, a career wrecking scandal worth paying expensive PR and legal teams to fend off, and correspondingly less common - would be an interesting matter for grad student research. But the problem of dealing with it does not change depending on that number.

 

 

 

I.e. how much is perception and how is really quantifiable? The closest thing I could find is the corruption perceptions index,

As you have found, the easiest thing and possibly the only thing available for quantification would be the perceptions.

 

Do you plan to quantify the degree to which films are pornographic, separately from anyone's perception of them?

 

 

 

It is certainly true that Canada (and Australia, as well as many Nordic countries) are ranked higher, but then it goes again to the question how much is the difference, really?

The way to handle that question would be to describe the situation clearly to the voters, persuade the people who voted in the gullible and the venal and the ignorant and the cynical promoters of this vandalism to see and recognize what has happened,

 

and then we will find out if they are OK with it, or whether they would prefer different arrangements.

[CharonY]

I believe we are talking about different points. My initial assumption (without data) was that most governments will exhibit corruption due to interconnections between elements of power. I believe your argument appears to be that a) it was not the case in the US until recently (for which I have not seen any data to substantiate) and b) that other countries do much better.

 

I provided the link using the only metric that I could find that at least based on ranking there does not appear to be something fundamentally different between the US and other Western countries with similar forms of government.

 

I think your arguments do not touch these points at all but are rather a rally to change the current situation (with a hint that it used to be better). To be fair, both of us have moved quite a bit off-topic so it would be fine to end the discussion at that point.

 

Though it does intrigue me whether corruption has indeed risen significantly over the years and whether the Reagan years were indeed turning point of sorts. Why I like to go back to data and values is that anecdotes are good for opinion pieces, but do not necessarily reflect reality. One striking element that I could find that could back it up is that there appears to be a significant increase in revolving door issues (e.g. policy-makers becoming lobbyists, lobbyists serving as congressional staff members etc.).

 

It should be noted that the EU is riddled with the very same issues. One interesting point would be to see whether that is really a novel development and where the roots are. For instance, have there been changes in regulations that would prohibited it earlier?

Edited July 31, 2013 by CharonY

[overtone]

 

 

My initial assumption (without data) was that most governments will exhibit corruption due to interconnections between elements of power. I believe your argument appears to be that a) it was not the case in the US until recently

I have never said anything that would even suggest, hint, or lead to the misinterpretation that the US government, or any government, has at any time been free of corruption.

 

 

 

I provided the link using the only metric that I could find that at least based on ranking there does not appear to be something fundamentally different between the US and other Western countries with similar forms of government

The survey you quoted deals only with international businessmen's perceptions of international business negotiations. And even in that limited arena your assessment that there is no "fundamental" difference between ranking, say, fifth, vs ranking 19th is without support in evidence or argument.

 

My argument is that difference in degree becomes difference in kind in this matter - that, like friction in an engine, some is inevitable but too much changes the very function.

 

 

 

Why I like to go back to data and values is that anecdotes are good for opinion pieces, but do not necessarily reflect reality

What I posted is not anecdote, but physical circumstance and verifiable event - the fact that what used to be felony bribery hidden and marginal is now legal political expenditure dominating the campaign finance landscape is not anecdote, but flat reality. The VP of the US openly channeling major military contracts to a company he still owned stock options in after tenure as CEO is not "anecdote" but example, as is his open declaration of defiance when Congress timidly observed that he wasn't allowed to meet with groups of executives of big oil companies to discuss US energy policy without keeping a record of what was agreed and with whom, and divulging this to Congress - you can't find behavior like that in the White House since the 19th century if then. The appointment of Goldman Sachs execs to major financial regulatory posts is not anecdote, the tripling and more of K Street lobbyist expenditures and personnel on the scene is not anecdote, the scope of the career of Jack Abramoff and his personal access to Congressional and Executive leadership, the fact that recently actual regulatory legislation has been written word for word by industry lobbyists for legislators to propose, these are not "anecdotes". They (like your revolving door frequency increase) are evidence - overwhelming evidence.

 

OK, the W administration incident where the lobbyist wandered around the House floor during session passing out envelopes of cash to US Congressmen on the eve of a critical vote, that is anecdote - but it happened. It is reality, not something one wonders is real.

 

Back in the early 1970s we had Spiro Agnew taking envelopes of cash across the VP desk - but he was disgraced and lost his office under threat of prosecution. Cheney had a large personal safe installed behind his desk, and never faced even a hint of pro forma investigation. .

 

Gitmo, Bagram, Abu Ghraib, Diego Garcia, et al, are not anecdotes. They are unique in US history. So is a warrantless domestic wiretapping program authorized from the White House.

 

And as far as values - let the voter decide. The informed voter.

[CharonY]

 

 

Gitmo, Bagram, Abu Ghraib, Diego Garcia, et al, are not anecdotes. They are unique in US history. So is a warrantless domestic wiretapping program authorized from the White House.

 

I am not sure how that goes with corruption, but assuming you mean ethical issues in a broader sense it is more a matter of which time frames you are looking at. Today's situation does not look that unique if you compare it to, say, mass internment of US-citizens of Japanese descent during WWII, human experimentation on Guatemalans in the 40s, McCarthyism, the eugenics movement which basically only stopped sometime during WWII, etc.

 

With regards to warrantless wiretaps:

 

 

 

The government has participated in wiretapping during the 1960s

and 1970s when they implemented a widespread program of wiretapping and permeation of

dangerous groups thought to be an endangerment to the government. This program was fraught with abuses and even spied on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

and

 

 

Warrantless wiretapping has been sanctioned by the Supreme Court and the full case (UNITED

STATES V. UNITED STATES DIST. CT., 407 U. S. 297 (1972) was posted on the U.S.

Supreme Court website, www.supreme.Justia.com [4], the law suit states that many presidents

and attorney generals since 1946 and the Executive branch of government have used warrantless

electronic surveillance to collect intelligence data since the 1800s. Wiretapping was instituted to

speed up the process and to avoid the red tape of bureaucracy. As with all things government,

the pace in which things are done is extremely slow. Wiretapping would circumvent the process

and allow quick actions to be taken to apprehend the enemy.

 

 

http://airccse.org/journal/ijmit/papers/1110ijmit03.pdf

 

One could and should argue the scale, but that there are technological reasons for that. I.e. it simply was not that easy in former times. I would argue that the ethical landscape has not shifted that much but there may have been at least two major changes. One is the rise of very powerful conglomerates (though Eisenhower already warned about the "mitlitary-industrial complex" and potentially anti-corruption laws. If something that was illegal is somehow legal now, there must have been changes in regulation at some point. Also there may be a survivor bias. Maybe people just did not get caught or were reported on that often in former times?

Edited July 31, 2013 by CharonY

[overtone]

 

 

Today's situation does not look that unique if you compare it to, say, mass internment of US-citizens of Japanese descent during WWII, human experimentation on Guatemalans in the 40s, McCarthyism, the eugenics movement which basically only stopped sometime during WWII, etc.

If the problem is that people think the torture interrogation setups at Bagram, Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, etc, authorized by the White House and defended in court, look like nothing much different than the internment of Japanese during WWII or McCarthyism, I don't see how quantifying anything will help.

 

That has been, after all, the standard third stage of Republican response to exposure: 1) It isn't happening / doesn't exist 2) Both sides do it / are responsible for its existence 3) it's always been like this, no big deal.

 

You can lead a horse to quantified water, you can't make it think.

 

 

 

One could and should argue the scale,

Not only the scale, but the source and the secrecy and the legality, are different. Wiretapping MLK (say) was a crime, and that severely limited the use and the damage as well as the precedent. Hoover had to do it on his own, and limit it to preserve deniability, and make his court cases in public and without it. A President that admitted authorizing the foreign intelligence agancies to wiretap MLK without a warrant and torture his associates for information would have faced horrified revolt - not re-election.

 

but that there are technological reasons for that

So? If the threat of this stuff has been boosted by technological advance, all the more reason to deal firmly and promptly with it.

 

 

 

I would argue that the ethical landscape has not shifted that much but there may have been at least two major changes.

May have been? Really?

 

One is the rise of very powerful conglomerates

And their alliances with, occupation of, and influence over, the Executive Branch (At one point recently we had oil company executives simultaneosly as President, VP, and Secretary of State. Goldman Sachs execs and their associates have held Executive Branch positions of power continuously for many years now)

 

If something that was illegal is somehow legal now, there must have been changes in regulation at some point

Several of which have been listed and mentioned, for your convenience, above.