Good Afternoon, Tim
When I speak of political corruption, I refer not only to overt corruption of the Koreagate, Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff variety. I also include the corruption of spirit which flows from selling one's loyalty. In that sense, the corruption of our political process is pervasive.
I could qualify that by saying that we occasionally see a freshman Congressman who has avoided the taint, but such people are rare and the condition doesn't last long. In a recent exchange with another person on this topic, he wrote:
"I remember an rookie state representative telling me that his
first day at the capital landed him in a back room with party
leaders telling the young man that if he intended on being
reelected, he will do as they say. Else they would put an
opponent up that will be heavily financed to defeat him."
I cannot attest to the validity of the statement. I wasn't there, and I didn't witness it, but it is certainly in keeping with what I know of the way our political system works. Under the circumstances, "pervades" seems a reasonable choice of words.
re: "I don't think that the parties are the main reason for the curruption. If you could eliminate the parties I'm not sure you would even reduce corruption. Individual candidates face many currupt incentives and would continue to do so without a system where to parties are dominent or even in a system with no parties at all.
There are two issues here: the corruptibility of humans and the corrupting effect of political parties.
As to the first, the pursuit of self-interest is a natural human trait and corruption is a form of that pursuit. Unfortunately, corruption, like greed, is more easily alleged than proven. We can't even categorize acts as corrupt until they become extreme, but that does not stop us from recognizing the cumulative effects of corruption and the conditions in which it flourishes.
We can properly say that humans are corruptible, but we know empirically that not all humans live in a socially destructive state of corruption. Society exists because the vast majority of humans conduct themselves within acceptable norms of behavior. Most of them expect others to do the same, and, indeed, tend to assume that they do.
Is it possible your uncertainty that corruption could be reduced flows from its very pervasiveness in our political lives? Are we not inclined, when the night is darkest, to doubt the coming of the dawn? Is it not possible a selection process which prizes integrity will create a healthier view?
As to the corrupting effect of political parties, it is clear when you realize how the parties provide the infrastructure for corruption. Party officials, many of whom were never elected to their positions of power and whose terms of service span multiple election cycles, serve as fund raisers. They obtain money by selling the votes of their party's candidates. They can raise money because they can deliver the votes ... and they can deliver the votes because they select the candidates and finance their election.
The infrastructure of political parties is specifically designed to raise the money to elect politicians ... and the parties' stock in trade, the product they have for sale, is the votes of the politicians they elect. That makes political parties conduits for corruption.
We should note that, for the most part, the office-holders do not receive the money donated to the party. The smart ones don't dirty their hands. Instead, they get the ego-gratification, the compensation and the power of the offices they attain ... and all they have to do is vote as they are instructed by their party ... by the fund-raisers who sold their votes.
One of the troubling things about this is that political parties are able to serve as conduits for corruption because they have institutionalized the process and fulfill their role with our knowledge and tacit approval. The way it works is no secret. We have become so inured to "party bosses", "pork barrel politics", "party loyalty", "slush funds", "party whips", and the whole lexicon of political manipulation that we no longer think about the meaning of the terms. We have a wealth of information about the mechanism, and, as we do not prevent it, we effectively become a party to it.
If we devise an election method where candidates are advanced on their merit rather than their partisanship, each representative would have to be bribed separately. That may not be impossible, but it is certainly more difficult than working a deal with a party fund-raiser and controlling all the party's politicians. In our current system, the party acts as an intermediary. If you eliminate the party, all that's left is direct bribery ... and bribery is illegal. While some people will participate in immoral acts, illegal acts are less popular.
re: "I'm not sure what you mean by this (The method must be democratic, i.e., it must allow the entire electorate to participate). Perhaps you could expand on it. The entire electorate can vote by definition. I suppose that you mean that the inital selection of candidates should be done by the entire electorate or at least a process that is open to the entire electorate?"
We are devising a new method of selecting those who represent us in our government. We are at the stage of listing the goals we seek to attain. I suggest one of the goals of the new method is that it be open to, as you mentioned, all citizens who have attained maturity. Any who disagree that this is a proper goal for our efforts should present their arguments so they may be considered.
re: "I'd definitly like you to expand on this idea (that it must be egalitarian, i.e., it must give everyone an equal chance of being elected to public office). I can't agree with the words as written but perhaps I'm not getting your real meaning."
There may be, in some town, a bright, thoughtful, persuasive woman who is capable of leadership but who is unwilling to subject herself to the degradation of our political system. There may be, in another town, a man of similar qualities who stays out of politics for much the same reasons. When I suggest the new method must be egalitarian, I mean that each of these people ... and all the rest of us ... must have an equal opportunity to participate in and advance through the process. We must all be allowed to participate, regardless of our beliefs or our support for or opposition to this or that ideal. Whether or not any of us advance must depend on our individual qualities (one of which will be our ability to convince others that we should be advanced).
re: "Maybe I should look for her posts (Mary Cluney's comment from which I took the requirement for face-to-face discussion). I don't see how this could work."
How it could work will depend on how the method is defined. This is, essentially, a question of mechanics. Our communications and data processing capabilities and our high-speed transportation offer us great flexibility in creating the method. If we replace the one-way communications that characterize our present electoral process with multi-way communication, candidates can not dissemble and obfuscate as they currently do to delude and mislead the electorate. We should not approach the problem with the notion that "campaigning", as we know it, is a good or desirable way of selecting our representatives. There are better ways. We need to define one.
re: "I guess that (it must be in harmony with human nature) would normally be an assumed qualification, but it doesn't hurt to make your assumptions explicit. Its often a good idea."
I think you're right, it probably "would normally be an assumed qualification". The problem is assuming. Rather than assume, we must really think about how humans react in given sets of circumstances ... not how we would like them to react, but how they actually react.
Our current political system is a case in point. We want to believe that those we elect to public office will act honorably on our behalf. We continue to believe that in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary ... or, we cynically decide that the whole human race is corrupt. However, if we think about it, it's not so hard to see that, if it costs ten million dollars to win a Senate seat, those who want to be senators will happily compromise their integrity to secure the financial backing.
When I suggest our method must be in harmony with human nature, I mean we must carefully consider how humans will really act in the system we design.
Fred |
