The particular type of political corruption the author of this article, Joe Klein, discusses is earmarking. Earmarking is basically the direction of funds towards a specific project or program. The author remembers the "Cornhusker Kickback," a controversy back in 2009 where the federal government promised to send extra Medicaid funds to Nebraska to secure the 60th vote needed to stomp out the filibuster. He considers earmarks like this "a useful lubricant for the great gears of legislation." Something Lincoln would have done. A highly effective leader, the author argues Lincoln moved forward pragmatically, "via the low arts of patronage and patronization."
Are these type of manipulative earmarks justified? I think in a situation as desperate as the fiscal cliff, morally-dubious negotiations are almost justifiable, but to a point. If the media were to let corruption slide now, however well the issues may be solved, the permissiveness may come back to haunt a future political landscape. Is looking back to Lincoln appropriate? It was well over a century ago. The main question again seems to be one of pragmatism versus morality.
edit: sorry the link was wrong before but now it is fixed
edit: sorry the link was wrong before but now it is fixed
7 comments:
While earmarking may not be the most moral form of persuasion out there, in this case I agree with Joe Klein. Frankly we should be glad that our government doesn't exhibit more serious signs of corruption (e.g. Syria). Although we should expect politicians to be slightly more moral than the average person (they are running our country after all), we can't forget that they're human too. If a tiny bit a immorality gives a few areas of the country a little extra attention, then in my opinion so be it. We can't expect perfection of anyone.
It has been a consideration of mine that our moral standards are too high for politicians. For example, to the scenario in the reading, "The Broken Branch," where those trying to persuade others to change their vote on a provision of Medicare in the House were attacked for overextending the voting session to gain the majority they wanted, though a majority was already arrived at in due time, my response was that I really don't consider their motives as highly immoral and the accusations were a bit exaggerated. In everyday life, people strike deals similar to those described in the article, but those aren't thought of as that criminalizing as those in politics—although, issues of politics are far more important. That being said, the magnitude of effect of politicians' decisions does call for higher moral standards. But I still think that at times, these standards may be too high. A reason for this may be because of the divisive nature of politics in that one party is quick to blame another party in order to attain a sort of superiority, and I guess the media/journalists have picked up on this, especially if they're bias.
Also, in regard to the reading, if it was that easy to change a congressman's vote, then that means they weren't set on their decision in the first place. I think it's only immoral if he was forced to vote against his will/beliefs. (Haha, sorry for sort of going off on a tangent)
Also, I tried to refer to the article by clicking on the link but I got a gallup article about creationism?
I disagree with Garrett, as is becoming a habit. This "tiny bit [of] immorality" is NOT acceptable for our politicians, because as he noted they are leading our country and should be held to the highest moral standard available. If the leaders who represent the United States are not kept honest then we, the American people, are being lazy in our duty to ensure justice. Allowing small inequalities to go under the radar is tantamount to giving up altogether. The United States portrays itself as a global beacon of morality and this ideal should be remembered, Lincoln or not.
I agree with Joe Klein , and think that a little earmarking and other small strategies like this, if they manage to accomplish big things, are worth doing. While in a ideal world we might like everything to be 100% clean and moral, we do not live in that situation and it seems like things like the sending a bit of extra funding to Nebraska is necessary thing for a much greater good.
I agree with David. Politicians, as leaders of our country, are excepted to meet a high moral standard. No matter what the degree, immorality is unacceptable; if we keep allowing little slip-ups to pass by because they're "tiny," the government will just become full of these immoral actions that because we have deemed them reasonable and acceptable. I think that politicians should definitely strive to be as moral as possible and not use strategy as an excuse to use immoral ways to achieve their goals. While a little earmarking may not be all that harmful, letting it slide will probably lead to consistent immoral practices. Therefore, although we can't be perfect, we should do our best to come as close as we possibly can.
I agree with Joe Klein and Sam Sokolsky. If a little bit of bargaining and a few deals are needed in order to help our country, I don't see the problem. Politicians aren't always going to agree on what's best for the US, in fact a lot of the time they don't and because of this it's often very challenging for Congress to pass laws that could benefit our country. As we discussed in class today, logrolling is a necessary part of Congress in order for things to get done, and I think that earmarks are kind of similar. There isn't much of a difference between trading votes and giving a little extra money to a specific district or state. Giving earmarks in return for votes may look more corrupt on paper, but I think in the end it can help to make our political system more efficient.
I think that while everyone has made valid points I do agree that politicians should be held to a higher moral standard. I think that part of the job they hold running a country is to exhibit morals. I think that "a little bit" of immorality is hard to define and limit. Each "little bit" leads to more and more. It grows to create a government the people can't trust.
I think that it is unrealistic to expect perfection out of government officials because they are people too. But when they can recognize something wrong they should make an effort to change it. The US should be run on the best morals and best decisions it can.
Post a Comment