Lawless

[paft.livejournal.com]

As I was saying:

Republican Wisconsin State Senator Scott Fitzgerald on what Walker’s union busting is REALLY all about:

If we win this battle, and the money is not there under the auspices of the union, Obama is going to have a much more difficult time winning this election and winning the state of Wisconsin.

Democratic Representative Peter Barca, as the Joint Conference of Committee rams through the bill stripping public sector unions of most of their collective bargaining rights:

This is a violation of law. This is not just a rule. This is the law.

This attack on public sector unions is not about being fiscally responsible, any more than “voter fraud” laws supported by Republicans are about respecting the vote.

This is about breaking the unions, defunding the Democratic party and making it difficult for President Obama to be elected. It is about the raw exercise of power, regardless of the law. It is about establishing what amounts to single party rule.

I draw a direct line to this moment from our willingness, as a country, to countenance what happened during the 2000 presidential “election,” when Florida’s Republican Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, deliberately disenfranchised several thousand legal voters. Afterwards, the leadership of both parties told those of us who objected to sit down and shut up about it, as if valid American voters being turned away from the polls were nothing to make a fuss about.

The Republican Party learned they could win by openly and illegally subverting the will of the people and trashing the constitution and rule of law. Nobody should be surprised that they’ve escalated this tactic over the years. A large voter turnout is a liability to the G.O.P., and they know it. Their agenda directly and adversely affects too many voters – minorities, women, gays, union members, and lately, the middle class in general.

They don’t really need or desire a lot of voters anymore – just a nasty core of astro-turf supported yellers, and corporate buddies to funnel money into their campaigns.

And we, as a country, have allowed this to happen.

I stand behind pro-union demonstrators in Wisconsin. I wish them luck. I hope the tide of protests doesn’t recede. I hope that every single one of those Republicans who are ramming through this law find themselves confronted with hisses of “shame” every time they step out into public. I hope that recalls send as many of them as possible packing in the next couple of years.

But to every one of those protesting people who voted for Scott Walker, or those other Republicans I also say, “elections have consequences.” By voting for people who have nothing but contempt for you, you threw away freedom with both hands.

Good luck getting it back. And I mean that sincerely.

Crossposted from Thoughtcrimes

Comments

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

In this context I would define corrupt as; Opperating in one's own best interests, putting them before those of the society whom they were elected to serve. "contempt for the concept of a popular vote" (as you put it) could certainly be included in this definition.

You have stated that you believe that the GOP as a party has displayed a contempt for deomcracy. Thus, within the bounds of the above definition the GOP is corrupt.

The GOP represents roughly half of the politicians in our government.

Er go, roughly half of our government is corrupt.

[paft.livejournal.com]

s Operating in one's own best interests, putting them before those of the society whom they were elected to serve.

If most politicians were really out solely for Number One (themselves) they'd more likely have gone into private industry, which is MUCH more lucrative. No, most of the politicians I've known have been convinced that they are acting in the best interests of their constituents and country -- though they sometimes believe they know better than their own constituents what's good for them.

s: "contempt for the concept of a popular vote" (as you put it) could certainly be included in this definition.

That stretches the definition of "corrupt," past where I would apply it.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

That stretches the definition of "corrupt," past where I would apply it.

Fair enough.

As for the rest, I suppose it gets into individual values. If one is more interested in power and prestige than strictly material wealth, politics is far more lucrative than private buisness.

[paft.livejournal.com]

You don't think "power and prestige" can be found in the private sector?

No doubt most politicians like the idea of power, but that's almost always tied to the notion of using that power for what they perceive as the public good.

What you're espousing is really every bit as naive and malleable as the mindset of wide-eyed souls who believe every politician is their friend and knows what's best. A person who sees every politician as "corrupt" and dishonest and out for number one is just as incapable of distinguishing between a candidate who will actually promote policies that help them and a candidate who won't.

They can be just as easily lied to and manipulated. And they are a big part of what makes going into public service such a thankless, miserable, and expensive undertaking that many qualified people who would do a great job in the public sector would rather eat glass.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

You don't think "power and prestige" can be found in the private sector?

Of course they can be found in the private sector. Just as well paying jobs can be found in the public sector.

What you're espousing is really every bit as naive and malleable as the mindset of wide-eyed souls who believe every politician is their friend and knows what's best. A person who sees every politician as "corrupt" and dishonest and out for number one is just as incapable of distinguishing between a candidate who will actually promote policies that help them and a candidate who won't.

That is a fair criticism, and I will concede the point. That said, who is more likely to be taken advantage of, he you trusts everyone, or he who trusts none?

[paft.livejournal.com]

Paft: You don't think "power and prestige" can be found in the private sector?
sw: Of course they can be found in the private sector. Just as well paying jobs can be found in the public sector.

Those "well-paying jobs" are highly unlikely to be as well paid as private sector jobs.

sw: That said, who is more likely to be taken advantage of, he you trusts everyone, or he who trusts none?

In the political arena, both are just as likely to be taken advantage of.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I already conceded that point but thank you for illustrating my argument.

[paft.livejournal.com]

What argument of yours have I illustrated?

You asked me a question. I answered it.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Compare this

Those "well-paying jobs" are highly unlikely to be as well paid as private sector jobs.

to this

Those "powerful/prestigious jobs" are highly unlikely to be as powerful or prestigious as public sector jobs.

[paft.livejournal.com]

Donald Trump? Steve Jobs? Bill Gates? Seems to me these buys enjoy more power and prestige than people in the public sector, AND for longer periods of time.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

You've engaged a logical fallacy, specifically "Affirming the Consiquent".

The question is not wether it was possible to achieve power and prestige in the private sector but how common it is. If becoming a Bill Gates, or Richard Branson, were easy a lot more people would do it.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Compare the power of a police officer or the prestige of a teacher to that of your average office-drone.

Likewise compare a succesful executive to a succesful politician.