Monday, September 17, 2018

Why politicians won't do what the electorate wants


Stephan Pastis provides what seems to me like a pretty accurate explanation.  Click the image for a larger version at the comic strip's Web site.




It's not just money and greed, of course:  it's also partisan political dishonesty.  See my previous post for a good example.  Senator Feinstein had the allegation months ago, but didn't mention it at all during the confirmation hearings.  Only when it looked like all their other efforts to block it had failed did she raise the accusation, and even then in a vague, underhanded way.  Honesty?  Integrity?  Fairness?  She wouldn't recognize them if they jumped up and bit her where it hurts.




Peter

9 comments:

Eric Wilner said...

The real challenge is getting the politics out of money. Because as long as political influence has monetary value, it will be bought and sold.

LindaG said...

If only they WOULD jump up and bite her where it hurts. Maybe they would infect her with better morals.
Her, her compatriots and all the darn RINOs in congress.

Anonymous said...

The time has come to take much, much more seriously Henry Mencken's suggestions that legislatores should be chosen by lot, and that those officials who are elected should, on completion of their terms, be taken out and hanged.

takirks said...

The solution is not to "get money out of politics", which ain't nevah gwanna happan, brodren und schwestern, but to put it out in the open: Let the market decide. What we need, my friends, is an open market on politicians. You want a particular piece of legislation? Fine; you pay for it. Open market rate. Uncle Sugar gets 90% of what you raise, and the sponsoring crook in Congress or the bureaucracy gets a 10% "Finder's fee". Oh, and here's the rub: You're a billionaire or a big corporation? You pay full freight; small guys? They get a discount, based on size of entity and number of them. Say that "Big Money Internet" wants a piece of legislation; fine--Call that a billion dollars in "legislative fees". But, say that there's a bunch of small fry in that industry that don't want that legislation: They get a multiplier of their "legislative fee" because of how many of them there are, and their smaller size.

Basically, apply the base principles of the Electoral College to bribery, so that nobody can force anything through without sufficient consensus to make it at least equally painful for all concerned.

Basic problem we have isn't "money in politics", which you'll never, ever get rid of, but that the hypocrisy and distortion of monetary interests has warped the ever-loving hell out of the governance of this nation. Me, I say put it all on a for-profit basis, and let these assholes fill the Treasury directly instead of the Clinton Foundation's bank accounts.

We might as well acknowledge reality, here. It's like the drug problem; folks, we done did held a plebiscite on that stuff, and our fellow Americans want their drugs. Reality is that you're not gonna stop the masses from doing their thing until and unless they decide they don't wanna do their drugs no mo', no mo'.

Recognize reality, and deal with it pragmatically. Politicians are gonna take bribes; put it out in the open, and make it a auction-type affair. The real problem here is not the money, but the hidden nature of it, and how it distorts the system. If Comcast is going to bribe Congress and local government for a monopoly, make them do it in the open, pay for it, and then allow counter-bids against 'em. That's how you solve this shit, and retain your civil rights.

Old NFO said...

Sadly, that will never happen... sigh

Fredd said...

Like William F. Buckley once said, I would prefer being governed by the first 100 people listed in the Boston phone directory than by the faculty of Harvard (I paraphrase here). If someone seeks public office, they should be disqualified immediately as a result.

Diane Feinstein is a Democrat, and nastiness and skulduggery is what they do. I would not expect anything less from her.

C. S. P. Schofield said...

The headline puts me in mind of the (I hope, failed effort by some politicians to get another Brexit referendum.

*sigh*

I wonder if they would accept a compromise whereby a second referendum would be held, but the ballots would give the voters a choice between;

"I'm sorry I tried to ignore the wisdom of my benevolent Masters"

and

"Just do what you were fucking told to, you perishing wankers!"

Bob Gibson said...

That '80% of American people support a bill' bit makes it sound suspiciously like Pastis is asking why congress can't pass any so-called 'gun safety' regulations. If this is what he's aiming at, his premise is utter bovine excrement. Also, to me, that is a *good* thing.

Keith_Indy said...

That would be why us common folk (ie non-million/billionares) give to the causes they hold dear to their heart.

For me, that would be the NRA and other gun control groups on the political front, veterans groups like the USO on the caring side.

Strength in numbers!