A Skeptic's Definition of Politics

Or is it a cynic’s definition? Or a realist’s? Or maybe just a pragmatist’s?

“Politics is like sausage. The more you know what goes into it, the less you want to eat it.” That is an old, old adage, (and included as one of the shocking, big revelations from a Wikileaked speech by Hillary Clinton to the Wall Street crowd) but one that has certainly retained, if not enhanced, its credibility as the years roll (roil?) on.

Instead of that analogy, however, allow me to offer a skeptic’s definition of politics: Politics is the art (and science) of using power and self-interest to reward friends, punish enemies, ideally with the goal of benefitting your constituents by solving their problems (too often even if they don’t know or think it’s a problem, or at least their problem). However, it cannot be denied that power will always be intrinsically linked to money. To think that electing any candidate to any office anywhere will magically effect a sea change ignores mountains of evidence going back millennia and represents little more than a delusional pipe dream.

We can debate how big the self-interest piece is, and where it fits in both the big and small picture, but it is naïve to fail to recognize its importance. The day of the selfless public servant is long gone, if it ever existed after the Founders (and not even all of them, either). To think anyone works or acts against their own self-interest borders on the absurd. No one who runs for president (of anything) will pursue courses of action that damage his/her personal, economic, or social standing, no matter how much of an outsider or reformer s(he) claims to be.

Please note, this definition fits more than the government sphere; it applies to the workplace, social groups, schools, even families (although good parents at least try to sublimate their interests to those of their children). [See the Berndt Power Theory for more on this.]

I would suggest that the manufactured outrage to those actions (by others) is either politically opportunistic, hypocritical (and hypocrisy in the political arena is a bi-partisan beast with centuries-old roots), disingenuous or even downright dishonest, or any, all of the above, or more. While I am not trying to excuse it, politics is practiced by human beings programmed to protect their self-interests. I don’t see how that system (and it's as true under Putin as it would be under Trump or Clinton) can or will change as long as it’s other human beings trying to make those changes.

If that fits your definition of corrupt, I cannot and will not argue with you. But I will argue that corruption is often in the eye of the beholder and that no candidate or office holder is immune from that charge. Although I have no argument that we deserve better, should demand better, my realistic view of human nature suggests we are unlikely to get better. While your/our agreement or disagreement with the political positions of any office (power) holder does not make him or her either more or less corrupt, it does reinforce the perception you/we already have of that person.

Have the Clinton and Trump Foundations used their wealth and connections to power to benefit themselves and the causes they favor? Have they used their power and influence to attract supporters to their foundations? Have they used their power to attract donors and money and thereby increase their own influence (in other words, more power; should Donald Trump be the next president do you really expect the influence of his foundation to  diminish–or grow)? Of course, because power unused is like a muscle – it atrophies and, perhaps more importantly to its political practitioners, ebbs from the vacuum to someone else who will use it for their own benefit. Power begets power as money begets money. Move along, nothing new here, nothing to see, no surprises.

I would ask that we all recognize that the perception of corruption is directly tied to our perception of a candidate, up to a point, of course. (Dennis Hastert leaps to mind, as does William Jefferson.) Two things to consider. The first thing is the “stink test.” If the same accusations were leveled at someone we liked and supported, would our outrage reach the same level? Not an easy answer, because it’s often hypothetical, so it is easy to emphatically say “Absolutely!” Second, consider the source, always. What does the accuser (or spreader of accusations) have to gain? It is unlikely that gain is solely “justice” or honesty. Like politicians, we act in our own self-interest, and that self-interest colors our perception. That applies to politics of every stripe and on every level.

Did the Clintons use their political influence to build their wealth and power? Of course. Is that corrupt, or just politics the way we practice it in the United States? Are they any different than Rex Sinquefield, the Koch brothers, the Bush family, George Soros, the Kennedys…. It’s a long, long list. What do you think will happen to the IRS audits of Donald Trump should he be elected president? Is the fact that a large percentage of the so-called personal money he has “donated” to his campaign has been used to pay bills submitted by companies that he owns in whole or in part, companies that serviced his campaign, corrupt? Or, if you’re a Trumpeter, just smart business? It’s all in the eye of the beholder.

Do I wish our system was more honorable? Do I wish our office holders were as self-sacrificing as George Washington (while noting that he was possibly one of the richest, if not the richest man in the country by the time his political career ended)? Of course almost all of us want that. But even if the president himself (or herself) is completely “honest” in the strictest sense of the word (Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Barak Obama were all personally honest as far as we know, IMO), how many of those past presidents have been used or sabotaged by people they trusted? Because, as long as money is flowing, there will be people using their positions to ensure it flows their direction. And that, my friends, like it or not, is the American political system. Whoever wins on November 8 will change that not one iota.

Annual Labor Day Post

Who will advocate for workers? The bigger the business, the less connected to the workers management becomes. And let’s recognize that the goal of a business is not to take care of workers but the investors (whether public or private); if that goal comes at the expense of workers, well, there are more workers out there, right? 

On my way out the door at Hancock, I was informed by the (then) superintendent, “I’ve got people who can do what you do.” I believe that was shortsighted and, in fact, inaccurate on more than one level. But then he didn’t really know what I brought to the party (honestly, it was a lot more than chips and dip, if I do say so myself) and building management only pretended to stand up for me while actually throwing me under the proverbial bus. But that seems the attitude of modern management in all fields.

(Note, as disappointing and hurtful as this was, it turns out they did me a favor, if perhaps not those students and teachers I might have benefitted by staying. But I landed in a great place to end (most of) my career, my four fantastic final years at Schechter/Mirowitz.)

So, in honor of Labor Day, I’m going to share a few paragraphs from previous articles on the topic:

From 2011:

• Child labor laws

• 40-hour work week

• Overtime

• Workmen's Compensation

• Non-discriminatory hiring practices

• Workplace safety laws

• Unemployment compensation

• Paid vacations

• Retirement pensions

This is just a partial list of gains for workers granted voluntarily through the generosity of businesses concerned for their employees. Oh, wait, no, these things that we now define as givens for a good job came as the result of decades of struggle by organized groups of workers known as unions.

From 2013:

I’ve previously written about the debt that most Americans, with the possible exception of those few whose families have always enjoyed prosperity, owe to labor unions. The growth of the middle class in the United States clearly parallels the growth of labor unions. The shrinking number of middle class households of the last couple decades follows that same trend of declining union households. While I understand the dangers of equating causation with correlation, I find the trend disturbing. I also find the charges of class warfare disingenuous, at best. I find it ironic that those concerns were nowhere to be found as the middle class shrank and income disparity grew, as unions were assaulted and vilified while CEOs saw their pay and prestige grow explosively.

I think our founding fathers were on the right track when they incorporated a system of checks and balances into our governance, trying to establish a system whereby no one person, group or branch was able to accumulate too much power. I further believe that checks and balances must also apply to our economic system, and that unions are a key check to the unbridled power of corporations (people though they may be). Government also has a role, both as a defender of the checkers (both unions and businesses) and as an enforcer/check itself.

Filling the Void

I understand there is no joy in Mudville, that the mighty Scalia’s light’s gone out. Some of my conservative friends are just that, conservatives; others are outright Obama haters (if he died, they’d complain that he didn’t do it soon enough AND that he stuck them with Joe Biden). Assuming that the 2016 election result will be more to their liking, I understand them cursing their bad luck in the timing of Scalia’s involuntary departure.

I even understand the call to delay the appointment, at least from a political and philosophical perspective. But such a position is an epic fail of the smell test. You will never convince me that if the situation were reversed, that if it were the end of a conservative presidency facing the death of a liberal justice, there wouldn’t be screams of outrage and ridicule were liberals to call for delay. Senator Mitch McConnell had no trouble voting to confirm Anthony Kennedy in 1998, the last year of President Reagan in office.

Yes, I know that technically Kennedy was nominated in late 1997, but in terms of the timing for the sessions of the Supreme Court, the 2-3 month difference means nothing; he didn’t start hearing cases until the 1998 session, just as whomever Obama appoints won’t start hearing cases until the 2016 session, assuming Senate Republicans don’t subvert the process. If they do, it won’t be until 2017 that the court has a full roster and a whole year will be spent one justice short.

Again, I get politically why conservatives and Republicans might see this as a good thing. And I suppose it might be for them, but only in the short term. (Or maybe not – click this link.) It seems to me, however, that such a move increases the acceleration of the decline of people’s faith and confidence in a government that is supposed to serve the citizens, not whatever political party has power at the moment.

Such politics of convenience and expediency over principle would have offended even Justice Scalia, I think, because he was, himself, a man of principle. I disagreed with the foundation of his principle (original intent, or textualism, as he came to call it), and would suggest that the existence of the elastic clause in the Constitution provides evidence that the framers expected it to be a living document, that they recognized the country would grow and change in ways they could not imagine and that the government needed the flexibility to grow and change with it. That legacy was part of their genius. I also think he was imperfect and inconsistent on when he chose to apply that principle.

But principled he certainly was. The attempted perversion of the process for filling vacancies (purely for anticipated political gain) by those calling for delay is not.