(no subject)
9/8/10 18:36![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
gunslnger.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsThe Real Rangel Scandal: A $6 Billion Taxpayer Gift to a British Company
I know it's not surprising and all that, but why are people continuing to put up with this kind of crap? Is there really no political will to get mostly-honest people (or even somewhat honest people) into office? What do you think would be your last straw? Or are you content to just argue about minor issues on the Internet and hope other people vote nicely when the time comes?
Previously silent on the matter, a growing chorus of Washington politicians now finds the ethics charges against New York Congressman Charles Rangel “very troubling.” The display of Kabuki Theater being played out in the media and House Ethics Committee is far more disconcerting – and is yet another illustration of Washington’s hypocrisy.
I know it's not surprising and all that, but why are people continuing to put up with this kind of crap? Is there really no political will to get mostly-honest people (or even somewhat honest people) into office? What do you think would be your last straw? Or are you content to just argue about minor issues on the Internet and hope other people vote nicely when the time comes?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 10/8/10 01:56 (UTC)Even more disturbing is the tendency of political parties to "circle the wagons" instead of putting members on the equivalent of administrative leave when trouble surfaces.
Just think of how much damage a crooked politician, especially a chairperson, can do while they remain in office contesting the charges. It sometimes takes years to remove them.
Term limits would go a long way toward fixing this (and other problems, including the influence of lobbying on the easily corrupted).
In addition, I think it is not an issue of "putting up" with this kind of behavior. Some voters like and encourage this kind of behavior, believing that they (or people they like) will benefit from it.
My theory: voters like being lied to
Date: 10/8/10 01:59 (UTC)Take your pick, but my theory is that voters don't actually mind a whole lot. Most of the time, run of the mill corruption simply doesn't get voters interested. It takes something that strikes a nerve before people finally react. This stuff won't do it.
If you ask the question of why people keep tolerating nothing but lies in election campaigns and voting for people anyway, it's the same thing. Voters largely know they're being lied to. They don't care a whole lot. Someone telling the truth about what actually needs to be done to the voters would get flattened. (This happened in Canada a couple years ago. People up here keep saying that they care about the environment, want to meet kyoto targets, and are upset that we aren't making anything resembling a serious attempt. Guy named Stephane Dion comes along and proposes a plan to actually meet those targets, during which he tells people what it's actually going to take. Boy was that a mistake. He also dared to suggest the government might run a deficit during the upcoming ression, while Prime Minister Harper plugged his ears and went "la la la la la the economy is fine and we won't run a deficit ever!" Unsurprisingly, Harper got re-elected. Shortly after which he run up the largest deficit in the history of the country.)
So... we don't get mostly honest people because an honest person wouldn't get elected, and there's no particular will to remove corrupt people once they're in.
At the end of the day, you can look at the pattern of behaviour and see what voters really value. They don't value honesty in people getting elected. They value being told what they want to hear no matter how unrealistic it is... and where do you find honest people willing to lie for an entire election campaign?
(no subject)
Date: 10/8/10 02:42 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/8/10 03:05 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/8/10 03:14 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/8/10 07:12 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/8/10 07:14 (UTC)One giant giant link.
(no subject)
Date: 10/8/10 07:25 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/8/10 08:01 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/8/10 08:05 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/8/10 08:07 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/8/10 08:10 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/8/10 03:21 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/8/10 07:42 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/8/10 03:25 (UTC)As for why people put up with it? Things tend to work OK, its doesn't effect them directly, and its sort of expected. I mean our government is based on representative and corrupt people are part of society so its not surprising to find them in government too.
Though generally people like Rangel find themselves out of work before too long.
(no subject)
Date: 10/8/10 03:29 (UTC)DID HE? HMMMM? The article you link to doesn't really explain the charge very well. Also, it is a charge, not a proven ethics violation. In fact, in this quote it is just a leading question. I have been following the scandal and this is the first I have ever heard of any charge involving this kind of money. At first I thought "wow they finally found something!" But it seems I am to be disappointed. If this is related to the TARP, Rangel did not act alone, after all it was signed by G.W. Bush.
So, why did a assets and equity from a British company get purchase by the U.S. Government as a part of the TARP? I don't know, Here is a story about the matter (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=amp5wXx35fkc). Can you explain Rangel's role and why it is an ethics violation? How did he benefit? Who else was involved?
Another reason why voters don't take these kinds of things seriously is often the charges are inflated, distorted or overhyped. I mean like this story... what is the point of this story other than to mention Rengel's name, the phrase "troubling ethical charges" and a large dollar value in the same sentence? Combine that with the low expectations and no one cares.
To many people in his district across the river from me in Harlem it feels like he is being unfairly targeted since he is a very powerful Democrat (ways and means) and also because of the racial panic Obama has induced in the imaginations of some far right conservatives. (No, it's NOT your country anymore. ) There is some truth to this, I have never seen such a small petty scandals get quite so much national coverage unless one party or the other was behind the fuss, trying to get as much milages as possible out of it.
The irony is that the more Fox news and The NY Post blovate about how HORRIBLE HORRIBLE HORRIBLE I SAY! it is to have three rent controlled apartments and try to get school that named after you money, the more the people in his district think "Yup. They're just out to get him!" and they get ready to put him right back in office to make a point.
If this had played out more rationally, maybe it would have raised some real questions and opened a door for honest challengers to his seat. It's too late for that now.
That's politics folks!
(no subject)
Date: 10/8/10 06:46 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/8/10 05:03 (UTC)That's always my first thought as well. If the system selects for dishonest people, well, then, why act surprised when that's what we get?
(no subject)
Date: 10/8/10 04:15 (UTC)If Rangel is guilty, then by all means, nail him to the wall. But FIND HIM GUILTY FIRST.
(no subject)
Date: 10/8/10 06:47 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/8/10 07:15 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/8/10 07:58 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/8/10 13:58 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/8/10 18:10 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/8/10 19:38 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/8/10 02:40 (UTC)This just plays in to the idea that people are picking on him.
(no subject)
Date: 10/8/10 08:44 (UTC)