The Second Half of Watergate Was Bigger, Worse, and Forgotten by the Public(longreads.com)
longreads.com
The Second Half of Watergate Was Bigger, Worse, and Forgotten by the Public
https://longreads.com/2018/11/20/the-second-half-of-watergate-was-bigger-worse-and-forgotten-by-the-public/
250 comments
Torpedoing peace talks in order to win an election. Such a despicable act, I don't know any words fitting for it.
I know it was not the first or last time in history this has been done, but since this instance can be proven I would suggest that some choice sites such as Nixon's birthplace should be torn down, the ground burned and it left permanently in ashes as a reminder.
SOP in Washington. LBJ's escalation of the Vietnam War made his corporate sponsors an absolute fortune.
More recently, Theresa May's backing for military action in Syria pumped the stock price of British Aerospace, which happens to be part-owned by a capital fund that employ's Theresa May's husband.
The real problem with politics is that very few people understand how absolutely amoral and cynical it is. LBJ still had some interest in public service, but for a terrifying number of modern politicians the public service ethos is a fig leaf.
The real morality is narcissism and greed. As long as money keeps rolling in no one cares how it's made or who gets damaged in the process.
More recently, Theresa May's backing for military action in Syria pumped the stock price of British Aerospace, which happens to be part-owned by a capital fund that employ's Theresa May's husband.
The real problem with politics is that very few people understand how absolutely amoral and cynical it is. LBJ still had some interest in public service, but for a terrifying number of modern politicians the public service ethos is a fig leaf.
The real morality is narcissism and greed. As long as money keeps rolling in no one cares how it's made or who gets damaged in the process.
One has to be extra careful with distinguishing correlation from causation.
For anyone in top of politics they are likely going to be connected to people who are top in either corporations or organisations.
Theresa May isn't a dictator and can't just decide what she wants to without being in agreement with the rest of her politicians.
Insinuating that there is some causational relationship here is just as much part of the problem.
That said, there definitely are cases where the relationship seems very suspicious, but it's not a rule and I wish people would be more careful to prove their claims rather than just putting them out there. But maybe I am missing something here.
For anyone in top of politics they are likely going to be connected to people who are top in either corporations or organisations.
Theresa May isn't a dictator and can't just decide what she wants to without being in agreement with the rest of her politicians.
Insinuating that there is some causational relationship here is just as much part of the problem.
That said, there definitely are cases where the relationship seems very suspicious, but it's not a rule and I wish people would be more careful to prove their claims rather than just putting them out there. But maybe I am missing something here.
You are right that "dictatorship" or "conspiracy" are the wrong ways to look at this sort of corrupting influence. The actuality is far more pernicious - it doesn't take Bond-villain plotting, just people making decisions that are shaded by their own social connections. They don't need to be doing it deliberately or conciously, but even indirect connections to, for example, the defense industry or certain players in the finance industry will lead to decisions that benefit those to whom the decider is biased.
>Theresa May isn't a dictator and can't just decide what she wants to without being in agreement with the rest of her politicians.
This is true, to the extent where I wish people would stop individualizing problems that are obviously endemic to the entire system. The damage caused by individual conspiracies isolated in history is negligible to the scale of systemic issues in modern political economy. Applying some abstract thinking would help us understand that May isn't a dictator, but capital is.
This is true, to the extent where I wish people would stop individualizing problems that are obviously endemic to the entire system. The damage caused by individual conspiracies isolated in history is negligible to the scale of systemic issues in modern political economy. Applying some abstract thinking would help us understand that May isn't a dictator, but capital is.
What do you think of going for worker-owned-and-directed-cooperatives replacing traditional corporations as a first step in combating capitalism?
I think the idea is, to distribute power to the people. These cooperatives would generally make decisions that benefit the majority. Unlike what we have today where mega corporations (dictated by a handful few) keep doing whatever they can for 'growth' even if that means destroying people's lives and our planet.
I think the idea is, to distribute power to the people. These cooperatives would generally make decisions that benefit the majority. Unlike what we have today where mega corporations (dictated by a handful few) keep doing whatever they can for 'growth' even if that means destroying people's lives and our planet.
Philip May is a relationship manager for a company that among other things, manages mutual funds. While I don't doubt that some of those funds own BAE (as it's a component of the FTSE100, more funds will own it than not) this is a very silly link to make.
The older I get the more stunningly obvious and apparent the corruption is. It is endemic.
Perhaps you'll find the words in Hunter Thompson's obituary of Nixon [0] fitting:
"Richard Nixon is gone now, and I am poorer for it. He was the real thing -- a political monster straight out of Grendel and a very dangerous enemy. He could shake your hand and stab you in the back at the same time. He lied to his friends and betrayed the trust of his family. Not even Gerald Ford, the unhappy ex-president who pardoned Nixon and kept him out of prison, was immune to the evil fallout. Ford, who believes strongly in Heaven and Hell, has told more than one of his celebrity golf partners that 'I know I will go to hell, because I pardoned Richard Nixon.'"
[0]: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1994/07/he-was-...
"Richard Nixon is gone now, and I am poorer for it. He was the real thing -- a political monster straight out of Grendel and a very dangerous enemy. He could shake your hand and stab you in the back at the same time. He lied to his friends and betrayed the trust of his family. Not even Gerald Ford, the unhappy ex-president who pardoned Nixon and kept him out of prison, was immune to the evil fallout. Ford, who believes strongly in Heaven and Hell, has told more than one of his celebrity golf partners that 'I know I will go to hell, because I pardoned Richard Nixon.'"
[0]: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1994/07/he-was-...
I recommend watching Frost/Nixon, or the contemporary interviews. Nixon was a human and not devil incarnate. Its important we understand that potential for Nixon's evils lies within all of us. In the grand scheme of tyrants he wasn't even that bad - barely deserving of the label.
Who said he was the devil incarnate? You seem to be making a logical fallacy here.
I disagree with Hunter S. Thompson's portrayal.
You'll have to forgive me for paraphrasing, "a political monster straight out of Grendel and a very dangerous enemy". Which I find extreme. But Thompson was great at grandiose phrasing which is also why I like his writing.
You'll have to forgive me for paraphrasing, "a political monster straight out of Grendel and a very dangerous enemy". Which I find extreme. But Thompson was great at grandiose phrasing which is also why I like his writing.
"I don't know any words fitting for it"
I believe the relevant word is actually "treason" at least according to "The Vietnam War: An Intimate History".
I believe the relevant word is actually "treason" at least according to "The Vietnam War: An Intimate History".
Perhaps we should coin a new term, "Nixonian".
Nixon delenda est!
and sow in the salt
and sow in the salt
re: "The SEC filed an injunctive order against Gulf Oil on the grounds that their bribes were material information that should have been disclosed to investors, and that by failing to disclose them, it violated existing federal securities laws."
Huh, that looks like an early example of Matt Levine's rule that everything bad is also securities fraud. (From before the anti-bribery law was passed.)
Huh, that looks like an early example of Matt Levine's rule that everything bad is also securities fraud. (From before the anti-bribery law was passed.)
I commented at almost the precise moment (great minds!) of your comment on this fact, and cc'ed matt into the discussion: https://twitter.com/wokeberia/status/1065053152775270400
The followup tweet includes my suspicion this might have been the first because they first discovered the lack of a law, and creatively got around that fact.
The followup tweet includes my suspicion this might have been the first because they first discovered the lack of a law, and creatively got around that fact.
Al Capone was imprisoned on tax charges.
Not for lack of his other activities being illegal.
Not securities fraud.
The corruption back then was staggering. LBJ had attorneys flying money in briefcases back to Texas. Plus the fig leaf if his wife’s radio station purchase, which attracted all sorts of advertising from folks looking for favors.
We just learned today that the current acting Attorney-General was the sole employee of a nonprofit that paid him $1.2 million over 3 years but whose donor(s) are anonymous. The stated purpose of the nonprofit was to increase government transparency.
Thanks for posting this. Might've missed it otherwise... So much going on.
> So much going on
It's all part of the plan, man. Keep 'em distracted with too much info. It's like a law firm burying you with boxes and boxes and boxes of discovery, which has little or nothing to actually do with the case at hand. It's effective, and tiresome.
It's all part of the plan, man. Keep 'em distracted with too much info. It's like a law firm burying you with boxes and boxes and boxes of discovery, which has little or nothing to actually do with the case at hand. It's effective, and tiresome.
And that's why everybody sorta knows all this stuff is still going on, but we'll only get told the truth two or three generations later when the guilty are either dead or to old to matter for people to go after. But everybody knows politicians haven't become less corrupt all of a sudden.
People knowing is not enough. They should also care enough to vote/protest/etc differently
Voting and protesting have been attempted for decades, at least. They also are not enough. Those who wish to save the Union should look more closely at "etc".
Depends on the protests. E.g. the French beheading their king was also a protest.
Eh, not really. If he had been killed by a random brick thrown by a random protester, we could credit that to "protest". Louis XVI was arrested by the national army while attempting to flee the nation. After months of imprisonment by civil authorities, he was sentenced by a national assembly to be executed in the normal fashion for the time. That's really stretching the definition of "protest".
current acting*
I believe the jury is (literally) still out on the legality of his interim appointment.
I believe the jury is (literally) still out on the legality of his interim appointment.
He's acting Attorney General but may not be Acting Attorney General.
Increase transparency in one direction.
Is there a scandal here though?
He was part of a non-profit advocacy group that advocated for a specific cause. Some people contributed to that. Seems he ran around doing radio interviews, not making profits.
In a free society, I don't see anything wrong with that.
I'm not even sure if non-profits should be obliged to publicize their donors if the donors don't want to be identified.
Of course, if the work is specifically political, it should be transparent. Also, given that he's going to take a government position, we want to know who he's been taking from ...
While it does maybe look a little suspicious at face value there's no there there.
If a bunch of people want to run around advocating some kind of principle and raise money for themselves to do that then so be it, they can do that.
He was part of a non-profit advocacy group that advocated for a specific cause. Some people contributed to that. Seems he ran around doing radio interviews, not making profits.
In a free society, I don't see anything wrong with that.
I'm not even sure if non-profits should be obliged to publicize their donors if the donors don't want to be identified.
Of course, if the work is specifically political, it should be transparent. Also, given that he's going to take a government position, we want to know who he's been taking from ...
While it does maybe look a little suspicious at face value there's no there there.
If a bunch of people want to run around advocating some kind of principle and raise money for themselves to do that then so be it, they can do that.
> He was part of a non-profit advocacy group
“Part of” doesn't really capture his status as the sole paid employee.
> Seems he ran around doing radio interviews, not making profits.
The $1.2 million isn't the contribution to the entity that paid expenses and his salary, it's his salary from the entity. So it very much seems like he was running around doing radio interviews and making (rather large) profits.
“Part of” doesn't really capture his status as the sole paid employee.
> Seems he ran around doing radio interviews, not making profits.
The $1.2 million isn't the contribution to the entity that paid expenses and his salary, it's his salary from the entity. So it very much seems like he was running around doing radio interviews and making (rather large) profits.
No.
That he was the sole member is not relevant.
And you're misunderstanding the issue of 'non profit': he was not operating a profitable entity. His comp. doesn't count as profit for the org.
Again - there's nothing here. He was part of a private firm that did advocacy, among other things. 1/2 of the people that go into government go in from private firms, and we know nothing about their relationships otherwise.
This guy worked for this odd non-profit long before anyone could have conceived that he would be the US chief attorney, so there's no smoke here really.
That he was the sole member is not relevant.
And you're misunderstanding the issue of 'non profit': he was not operating a profitable entity. His comp. doesn't count as profit for the org.
Again - there's nothing here. He was part of a private firm that did advocacy, among other things. 1/2 of the people that go into government go in from private firms, and we know nothing about their relationships otherwise.
This guy worked for this odd non-profit long before anyone could have conceived that he would be the US chief attorney, so there's no smoke here really.
> That he was the sole member is not relevant.
That he was the sole paid employee is relevant to the minimizing deflection you keep making that he was merely “part of” the entity.
> And you're misunderstanding the issue of 'non profit'
No, I'm not (but you are).
> he was not operating a profitable entity.
Not that that is germane to anything, but non-profit doesn't mean that an organization isn't profitable, it means that there are no equity claims on any profits (that is, it doesn't return profits to it's owners.)
> His comp. doesn't count as profit for the org.
Which would be relevant if he issue was whether the org was making profits, but not when it is whether he was making profits.
> This guy worked for this odd non-profit long before anyone could have conceived that he would be the US chief attorney, so there's no smoke here really.
The former might be relevant to the latter if the accusation was that he was being bribed in anticipation of becoming AG, rather than the opacity of the background of a non-Senate-confirmed and otherwise non-publicly-vetted appointee as Acting Attorney General outside the normal line of succession.
That he was the sole paid employee is relevant to the minimizing deflection you keep making that he was merely “part of” the entity.
> And you're misunderstanding the issue of 'non profit'
No, I'm not (but you are).
> he was not operating a profitable entity.
Not that that is germane to anything, but non-profit doesn't mean that an organization isn't profitable, it means that there are no equity claims on any profits (that is, it doesn't return profits to it's owners.)
> His comp. doesn't count as profit for the org.
Which would be relevant if he issue was whether the org was making profits, but not when it is whether he was making profits.
> This guy worked for this odd non-profit long before anyone could have conceived that he would be the US chief attorney, so there's no smoke here really.
The former might be relevant to the latter if the accusation was that he was being bribed in anticipation of becoming AG, rather than the opacity of the background of a non-Senate-confirmed and otherwise non-publicly-vetted appointee as Acting Attorney General outside the normal line of succession.
> That there was 1 or more people is irrelevant, and I'm not deflecting anything.
> "So it very much seems like he was running around doing radio interviews and making (rather large) profits."
This statement implies a lack of understanding of what a 'non profit' is, because there is no indication of profit here.
But it doesn't matter - by all accounts, this was just a regular non-profit. There's nothing curious about it.
> "The former might be relevant to the latter if the accusation was that he was being bribed in anticipation of becoming AG"
He was employed there since 2014 - you're implication would be that somehow, years before Trump was elected, years before his nomination, that someone could have bribed him - which is totally far fetched.
Also - again - hypocritical if you don't apply the same logic to other members of such offices, all of whom have 'opaque' financial backgrounds were they in private office. Who paid Loretta Lynch's millions for 10 years before she became AG? And where was the uproar then?
There are no loaded dice here.
Just regular DC inanity.
> "So it very much seems like he was running around doing radio interviews and making (rather large) profits."
This statement implies a lack of understanding of what a 'non profit' is, because there is no indication of profit here.
But it doesn't matter - by all accounts, this was just a regular non-profit. There's nothing curious about it.
> "The former might be relevant to the latter if the accusation was that he was being bribed in anticipation of becoming AG"
He was employed there since 2014 - you're implication would be that somehow, years before Trump was elected, years before his nomination, that someone could have bribed him - which is totally far fetched.
Also - again - hypocritical if you don't apply the same logic to other members of such offices, all of whom have 'opaque' financial backgrounds were they in private office. Who paid Loretta Lynch's millions for 10 years before she became AG? And where was the uproar then?
There are no loaded dice here.
Just regular DC inanity.
> This statement implies a lack of understanding of what a 'non profit' is, because there is no indication of profit here.
(1) you keep explicitly demonstrating (not merely implying) complete ignorance of what a nonprofit is, because you keep saying that making profits is relevant to that status (it's not, returning them to investors is.)
(2) moreover, you keep demonstrating failure at reading comprehension at the same time, by stubbornly (now even after the error was pointed out) confusing a statement about Whittaker personally profiting with a statement about the nonprofit from which he was profiting doing so.
> He was employed there since 2014 - you're implication would be that somehow, years before Trump was elected, years before his nomination, that someone could have bribed him
No, my explicit claim was that your continuing to point to the fact that he was employed there before anyone could have predicted he would become AG would only be relevant if someone had made the outlandish claim you suggest, but that you are beating a strawman because literally no one anywhere has made that claim.
(1) you keep explicitly demonstrating (not merely implying) complete ignorance of what a nonprofit is, because you keep saying that making profits is relevant to that status (it's not, returning them to investors is.)
(2) moreover, you keep demonstrating failure at reading comprehension at the same time, by stubbornly (now even after the error was pointed out) confusing a statement about Whittaker personally profiting with a statement about the nonprofit from which he was profiting doing so.
> He was employed there since 2014 - you're implication would be that somehow, years before Trump was elected, years before his nomination, that someone could have bribed him
No, my explicit claim was that your continuing to point to the fact that he was employed there before anyone could have predicted he would become AG would only be relevant if someone had made the outlandish claim you suggest, but that you are beating a strawman because literally no one anywhere has made that claim.
I know exactly what a 'non-profit' is - your statement about 'making profits' clearly indicates you're something amiss with it - and there clearly is not.
It was a non-profit. He got paid. That's it. There's nothing to bring up. So why would you otherwise?
----
" but that you are beating a strawman because literally no one anywhere has made that claim."
Really?
"This is intellectually lazy its a clear case of corruption" ... is what someone wrote just above - and is the general implication of those commenting here.
The entire thread is devoted to insinuating that this guy has some kind of major conflict of interest due to his shady involvement with this non-profit.
So, no, it's not a 'straw man' - I'm responding directly to the assertion.
There is nothing here.
A curious but otherwise normal non-profit, in operation long before anything relevant.
There's probably no fire, there's not even any smoke.
It was a non-profit. He got paid. That's it. There's nothing to bring up. So why would you otherwise?
----
" but that you are beating a strawman because literally no one anywhere has made that claim."
Really?
"This is intellectually lazy its a clear case of corruption" ... is what someone wrote just above - and is the general implication of those commenting here.
The entire thread is devoted to insinuating that this guy has some kind of major conflict of interest due to his shady involvement with this non-profit.
So, no, it's not a 'straw man' - I'm responding directly to the assertion.
There is nothing here.
A curious but otherwise normal non-profit, in operation long before anything relevant.
There's probably no fire, there's not even any smoke.
Dude... stop digging you (metaphorical) grave. You lost this argument five levels up. Pretending not to understand why someone could be compromised by a cool million and change for a few interviews makes it terribly difficult not to assume bad faith on your part.
It is, however, the sort of public humiliation one might be willing to accept as an employee of Completely Ordinary People for the Advancement of Motivated Reasoning and Large Paychecks.
It is, however, the sort of public humiliation one might be willing to accept as an employee of Completely Ordinary People for the Advancement of Motivated Reasoning and Large Paychecks.
>That he was the sole member is not relevant. And you're misunderstanding the issue of 'non profit': he was not operating a profitable entity. His comp. doesn't count as profit for the org.
Which is irrelevant, as it's still revenue AND profit for him.
Which is irrelevant, as it's still revenue AND profit for him.
"Which is irrelevant, as it's still revenue AND profit for him"
And that is also irrelevant.
>>> He had a job and got paid for it <<<
Is this now the threshold for sinister activity?
Are you people reading your own words?
The implication of the OP regarding 'profit' was that there was something remiss re: 'non profit'.
There isn't.
There is no smoke here.
A guy had a job in the private sector, very much like most others before they go into public office.
That's it.
So, hopefully, they'll have a chance for vetting.
But we'll find out about as much about his non-profits backers as we did about Loretta Lynch clients while she was in private practice before become AG - which is not much.
Money he receives during holding public office is another story altogether.
Thy hypocrisy on this thread is byzantine, people have lost their marbles.
I'm so glad I don't have a stake in this game, and thankful everyday I'm not caught up in American political delusions which so few seem to actually be able to escape.
And that is also irrelevant.
>>> He had a job and got paid for it <<<
Is this now the threshold for sinister activity?
Are you people reading your own words?
The implication of the OP regarding 'profit' was that there was something remiss re: 'non profit'.
There isn't.
There is no smoke here.
A guy had a job in the private sector, very much like most others before they go into public office.
That's it.
So, hopefully, they'll have a chance for vetting.
But we'll find out about as much about his non-profits backers as we did about Loretta Lynch clients while she was in private practice before become AG - which is not much.
Money he receives during holding public office is another story altogether.
Thy hypocrisy on this thread is byzantine, people have lost their marbles.
I'm so glad I don't have a stake in this game, and thankful everyday I'm not caught up in American political delusions which so few seem to actually be able to escape.
>>> He had a job and got paid for it <<<
>Is this now the threshold for sinister activity?
Never wrote the above, never said that is the threshold, so not ever sure what you're going on about.
The threshold of "sinister activity" is getting money from unknown sources. That would be problematic whether you're DA or a private citizen (e.g. for money laundering etc). Doubly so if you're supposedly in an organization for "Accountability and Civic Trust", where you're making statements with political impact against policies, politicians and parties, as an "non profit" "ngo", while getting paid millions from unknown donors (with whatever agendas). Doubly so if it's 2017 and you continue getting paid from them while getting to the post of chief of staff of Sessions.
>Are you people reading your own words?
Well, what you quoted above are not "my own words", so there's that.
Never wrote the above, never said that is the threshold, so not ever sure what you're going on about.
The threshold of "sinister activity" is getting money from unknown sources. That would be problematic whether you're DA or a private citizen (e.g. for money laundering etc). Doubly so if you're supposedly in an organization for "Accountability and Civic Trust", where you're making statements with political impact against policies, politicians and parties, as an "non profit" "ngo", while getting paid millions from unknown donors (with whatever agendas). Doubly so if it's 2017 and you continue getting paid from them while getting to the post of chief of staff of Sessions.
>Are you people reading your own words?
Well, what you quoted above are not "my own words", so there's that.
A guy had a job in the private sector, very much like most others before they go into public office.
- What did you do before? - I did [stuff] - For who? - Not telling.
Yeah, that sounds legit.
- What did you do before? - I did [stuff] - For who? - Not telling.
Yeah, that sounds legit.
That’s the thing some people don’t get about non-profits - the employees and owners can certainly profit. An individual is in question here, not whatever entity he formed or was working for.
Also, non-profit just refers to the structure of the corporation for tax purposes. It’s also not a synonym for charity.
Also, non-profit just refers to the structure of the corporation for tax purposes. It’s also not a synonym for charity.
The notion of "personal profit" raised by the OP in relation to this is problematic - people just get paid by one group or another, it's just income. Why even bother with the 'personal profit' point?
A guy worked for a private entity for years.
That's it.
There's no story here.
Nobody working for the Gov. not even AG is going to be required to list all of those who paid into such entities over the past - and it only demonstrates the sad level of partisanship here that everyone should try to consider as much for this guy.
If there are some nefarious dealings then, fine, hopefully they will come to light.
Other than that, there is nothing here, not even smoke
A guy worked for a private entity for years.
That's it.
There's no story here.
Nobody working for the Gov. not even AG is going to be required to list all of those who paid into such entities over the past - and it only demonstrates the sad level of partisanship here that everyone should try to consider as much for this guy.
If there are some nefarious dealings then, fine, hopefully they will come to light.
Other than that, there is nothing here, not even smoke
That’s not quite accurate as far as how employment or compensation can be used to influence public figures. The amount seems rather high, and they would have to be demonstrate that he performed work for which that is something near fair market compensation. Did he have other jobs at the time, for instance? Did they hire any relatives of his? Plenty of questions to investigate as sometimes people are given entirely fake jobs as a method of bribery.
Your questions are reasonable, but in reality, there's nothing remotely suspicious about this.
People get paid a lot in high powered situations.
Fundraisers for charities make a fortune.
Members of Boards get paid a fortune for seemingly not doing a lot.
Tons of people in 'think tanks' are paid a fortune for their roles.
There's really not much out of line here.
If he was receiving money while on the public dole - that's another story.
If he 'all of a sudden' got a pile of cash whilst we knew he was going to be AG - different story.
But his involvement in the non-profit predates any of the Trumpian shenanigans, so this is really a non story.
If you apply the same degree of scrutiny to non-Trump officials from other eras, you run into the same problems.
Most massively: the Clinton Global Wealth Initiative. Basically a super-massive kitty-fund for the Clinton family, that actors - many of them nefarious - from all sorts of shady places in the world have paid into while Clinton was Secretary of State ! Her fund was literally receiving millions of dollars from state actors she was doing public business with. There was an example of a man in Chicago who made a $200K donation, and then was appointed to a board (after a scandal he was withdrawn) ... but there's basically no way to detangle Clinton from that fund, no matter how above board she is. Nobody in government should be managing a several hundred million dollar fund that their peers are contributing to. I'm not hinting that she was corrupt, rather, the conflict of interest is as big as you can get and there wasn't much fuss over it.
People get paid a lot in high powered situations.
Fundraisers for charities make a fortune.
Members of Boards get paid a fortune for seemingly not doing a lot.
Tons of people in 'think tanks' are paid a fortune for their roles.
There's really not much out of line here.
If he was receiving money while on the public dole - that's another story.
If he 'all of a sudden' got a pile of cash whilst we knew he was going to be AG - different story.
But his involvement in the non-profit predates any of the Trumpian shenanigans, so this is really a non story.
If you apply the same degree of scrutiny to non-Trump officials from other eras, you run into the same problems.
Most massively: the Clinton Global Wealth Initiative. Basically a super-massive kitty-fund for the Clinton family, that actors - many of them nefarious - from all sorts of shady places in the world have paid into while Clinton was Secretary of State ! Her fund was literally receiving millions of dollars from state actors she was doing public business with. There was an example of a man in Chicago who made a $200K donation, and then was appointed to a board (after a scandal he was withdrawn) ... but there's basically no way to detangle Clinton from that fund, no matter how above board she is. Nobody in government should be managing a several hundred million dollar fund that their peers are contributing to. I'm not hinting that she was corrupt, rather, the conflict of interest is as big as you can get and there wasn't much fuss over it.
Now that you’ve mentioned Hillary Clinton, I refuse to participate in this conversation.
the attorney general had a very high salary that was paid for by hidden people. he's been promoted out of nowhere to be the acting attorney general and appears to have a lack of adequate experience. If you wanted to bribe someone this is how you'd do it. Spiro Agnew and his bags of money could have been hidden by this practice (person was paid by a hidden third party).
" XXXX had a very high salary that was paid for by hidden people. "
Most people work for private entities and we have no idea what goes on.
I'm not sure if I like this guy at all, but that he worked for some non-profit is not a smoking gun of any kind really.
Most people work for private entities and we have no idea what goes on.
I'm not sure if I like this guy at all, but that he worked for some non-profit is not a smoking gun of any kind really.
However, most people do not hold the power of the US Attorney General, so we care less with them.
Obama's most recent Att. General, Loretta Lynch worked for almost 10 years at a super high-powered legal firm in DC and London just before Att. General.
Do we know how she was comped? By whom? How much? For what? What were her conflicts of interests with her very powerful clients?
She was paid by 'hidden people' via her firm. No doubt - and we have no idea who.
Everyone who's possibly going to be the US Att. General is going to have web of conflicts of interests in their history, a lot of it private.
1 year ago I don't think anyone could have predicted who would be the Att. General so I'm not sure this is smoke.
This guy seems to have some more obvious, more public conflicts of interests, those that don't like him should probably focus on that. I don't really like this guy, but then I don't know that much about him and I'm not American so I'm not going to say anything specifically other than there's nothing wrong with anyone working for a non-profit.
Do we know how she was comped? By whom? How much? For what? What were her conflicts of interests with her very powerful clients?
She was paid by 'hidden people' via her firm. No doubt - and we have no idea who.
Everyone who's possibly going to be the US Att. General is going to have web of conflicts of interests in their history, a lot of it private.
1 year ago I don't think anyone could have predicted who would be the Att. General so I'm not sure this is smoke.
This guy seems to have some more obvious, more public conflicts of interests, those that don't like him should probably focus on that. I don't really like this guy, but then I don't know that much about him and I'm not American so I'm not going to say anything specifically other than there's nothing wrong with anyone working for a non-profit.
That's just straight up what-about-ism. Any corruption in the past or from opposing political parties has zero to do with current corruption. The law doesn't take two people and pit them against each other for who violated a law the most. Any corruption is unacceptable.
I'm not pitting two people against one another - I'm indicating the sad hypocrisy on the part of all of you arguing corruption here.
The indication is that because he was part of a private non-profit - is that there is some kind of inherent shadiness - which is wrong.
The radical partisanship here has thrown all of the otherwise great debaters on here into a hissy fit.
There is no story.
He was part of an advocacy group from years ago - it likely has nothing to do with anything.
He could have been a private lawyer, or worked at any other private firm and it would indicate the same degree of ostensible corruption.
The indication is that because he was part of a private non-profit - is that there is some kind of inherent shadiness - which is wrong.
The radical partisanship here has thrown all of the otherwise great debaters on here into a hissy fit.
There is no story.
He was part of an advocacy group from years ago - it likely has nothing to do with anything.
He could have been a private lawyer, or worked at any other private firm and it would indicate the same degree of ostensible corruption.
How are the situations remotely analogous?
Lorette Lynch was being paid market rate to do skilled work by a transparent business, not a shadowy millionaire to do .. what exactly did Whittaker do to justify his pay?
Lorette Lynch was being paid market rate to do skilled work by a transparent business, not a shadowy millionaire to do .. what exactly did Whittaker do to justify his pay?
"How are the situations remotely analogous?"
Are you kidding? They are almost exactly analogue.
How do you prescribe this non-profit as 'shady'?
How do you arrive at the conclusion that he was not paid some kind of market rate?
How do you arrive at the conclusion that expensive DC law firms are 'reputable'?
How do you conclude that Loretta Lynch's dealings were not at least with nefarious corporations or individuals?
Have you ever worked with a high profile law firm? You do realize that they are expensive because they help powerful people and groups bend the law, right?
He was the head of a non-profit advocacy group - and there are tons of them - and he runs around advocating for whatever cause. I'm of the inclination to believe that it was just a shade less than lobbying, ergo non-profit instead of having to register as a lobbyist.
$500K is not that much in many circles - probably a lot less than Loretta Lynch will have earned for working for who? Exactly? (I mean her client list, which is likely private)
Was she involved in defending nefarious activity by private individuals or corporations? (You do realize what lawyers do, right?) I don't know, I don't think any of us do.
The situations are actually very similar.
Hopefully, we'll get more of a chance to vet him ... but I'm doubtful there'll be much transparency on the source of his funds.
Are you kidding? They are almost exactly analogue.
How do you prescribe this non-profit as 'shady'?
How do you arrive at the conclusion that he was not paid some kind of market rate?
How do you arrive at the conclusion that expensive DC law firms are 'reputable'?
How do you conclude that Loretta Lynch's dealings were not at least with nefarious corporations or individuals?
Have you ever worked with a high profile law firm? You do realize that they are expensive because they help powerful people and groups bend the law, right?
He was the head of a non-profit advocacy group - and there are tons of them - and he runs around advocating for whatever cause. I'm of the inclination to believe that it was just a shade less than lobbying, ergo non-profit instead of having to register as a lobbyist.
$500K is not that much in many circles - probably a lot less than Loretta Lynch will have earned for working for who? Exactly? (I mean her client list, which is likely private)
Was she involved in defending nefarious activity by private individuals or corporations? (You do realize what lawyers do, right?) I don't know, I don't think any of us do.
The situations are actually very similar.
Hopefully, we'll get more of a chance to vet him ... but I'm doubtful there'll be much transparency on the source of his funds.
This is intellectually lazy its a clear case of corruption.
No. Completely false.
A man who works for a private advocacy firm for years before going into public office, wherein nobody on earth would have had a clue that this guy was going to be the US chief attorney is - does not even hint corruption.
This guy was working this advocacy group in 2014. Are you really indicating that some people knew, in 2014 that Donald Trump would be pres 2 years later, and that 2 years after that, that Drump would put 'their boy' in as Att. General? Because that's what you'd have to insinuate if you think this guy is guilty of something (at least from this non-profit)
You have offered no rebuttal to my position, or remotely any evidence of corruption ... just ad-hominem.
In order to hint at 'corruption' you'd have to indicate that somehow, some time ago - before Trump was even President - that this guy was collecting millions from some vague source so that 'one day' he'd act on it.
It's absurd.
This new Att. General has enough glaring problem that are probably lower hanging fruit. This non-profit is probably not one of them, at least superficially.
A man who works for a private advocacy firm for years before going into public office, wherein nobody on earth would have had a clue that this guy was going to be the US chief attorney is - does not even hint corruption.
This guy was working this advocacy group in 2014. Are you really indicating that some people knew, in 2014 that Donald Trump would be pres 2 years later, and that 2 years after that, that Drump would put 'their boy' in as Att. General? Because that's what you'd have to insinuate if you think this guy is guilty of something (at least from this non-profit)
You have offered no rebuttal to my position, or remotely any evidence of corruption ... just ad-hominem.
In order to hint at 'corruption' you'd have to indicate that somehow, some time ago - before Trump was even President - that this guy was collecting millions from some vague source so that 'one day' he'd act on it.
It's absurd.
This new Att. General has enough glaring problem that are probably lower hanging fruit. This non-profit is probably not one of them, at least superficially.
Not absurd.
“Whitaker previously served as Chief of Staff to Sessions from September 2017 to November 2018”.
“Whitaker previously served as Chief of Staff to Sessions from September 2017 to November 2018”.
Yes - any money he takes while in public office should be disclosed, full stop. Of course. But this 'charity' operation has been in operation for a long time.
The commenters here are creating the controversy, it's not a straw-man I'm making.
This guy's background is shady enough, but not enough to imply that money received before working in government is somehow an implication of corruption.
The commenters here are creating the controversy, it's not a straw-man I'm making.
This guy's background is shady enough, but not enough to imply that money received before working in government is somehow an implication of corruption.
Nice straw man. He got 500k during 9 month in 2017, as you probably know if you've read the WaPo article... and I'd kind of expect that considering how active you comment on that topic.
And yes, if you want a significant public office, you should disclose mayor conflicts of interests. That definitively includes large share of recent income.
And yes, if you want a significant public office, you should disclose mayor conflicts of interests. That definitively includes large share of recent income.
>She was paid by 'hidden people' via her firm. No doubt - and we have no idea who. Everyone who's possibly going to be the US Att. General is going to have web of conflicts of interests in their history, a lot of it private.
Which is inevitable, but we should still check whether that's the case, whether that influenced their decisions, etc.
But it's even more important for them to not have CURRENTLY ACTIVE conflicts of interest.
Which is inevitable, but we should still check whether that's the case, whether that influenced their decisions, etc.
But it's even more important for them to not have CURRENTLY ACTIVE conflicts of interest.
>Most people work for private entities and we have no idea what goes on.
Most people can do whatever they like. It's when you are a public official and people can pay you for favors that this matters.
Most people can do whatever they like. It's when you are a public official and people can pay you for favors that this matters.
" It's when you are a public official and people can pay you for favors that this matters."
Except he wasn't in public office while working for some non-profit.
So what is your point?
Except he wasn't in public office while working for some non-profit.
So what is your point?
Another data point: His relationship with World Patent Marketing. I'm starting to have enough data points to draw a trend line...
I'm not referring to this guy specifically. I'm not sure I like him but there's nothing wrong with working for some arbitrary non-profit and taking whatever salary.
The issue is that it's completely opaque. If you want to promote transparency, you should "start with your own garden".
It doesn't matter at all what is privately funded group's objectives were as long as it's above bar.
Does this look bad? Yes, very hypocritical. But people are allowed to work for private entities doing such things.
Does this look bad? Yes, very hypocritical. But people are allowed to work for private entities doing such things.
It absolutely matter where the money came from. If you server the public money flow must be completely transparent if you want to prevent corruption, no matter if you do legislature, executive, or judiciary work. That is part of serving the public, and if one does not like that, they're free to not work in the government.
"It absolutely matter where the money came from. "
Really?
See my note above about Loretta Lynch and her 10 years at a high powered DC Law Firm. She was likely paid millions by very powerful interests.
Were you up in arms to see her client lists, how much she was paid before she was Att. Gen.?
Again - I don't like this new guy - but the double standard on this is very hypocritical.
People are allowed to work in private and have private transaction and none of it really matters unless there is some kind of predicate knowledge.
Again - during his time at this fund, nobody on planet earth could have known this guy was going to be Attn. General so the suggestion that he was being paid to alter the law is a little bit out there.
Really?
See my note above about Loretta Lynch and her 10 years at a high powered DC Law Firm. She was likely paid millions by very powerful interests.
Were you up in arms to see her client lists, how much she was paid before she was Att. Gen.?
Again - I don't like this new guy - but the double standard on this is very hypocritical.
People are allowed to work in private and have private transaction and none of it really matters unless there is some kind of predicate knowledge.
Again - during his time at this fund, nobody on planet earth could have known this guy was going to be Attn. General so the suggestion that he was being paid to alter the law is a little bit out there.
Loretta Lynch faced extensive questioning in the Senate and long, contentious hearings about her background and clientele during a nearly six month nomination process. She was heavily vetted by both parties and eventually gained enough votes to move forward, including by McConnell and Graham. Yes, she was vetted publicly. No, this acting AG has not been. Not for a moment, which is why the free press is so important in an appointment like this.
I'm not saying anything about this particular case or others, I'm saying that transparency is key to avoiding corruption. If you don't want the public to know about your large financial transactions, you're free to not work for the government. You don't have to agree, but time and time again have we seen how money flows to those who will make decisions that benefit the the source of the money.
Yes, I agree with you - but:
a) We are talking about a specific guy
b) The commenters are clearly holding him to a totally different standard
c) Unfortunately - there'd be no public servants if everything had to be disclosed. It'd be impossible. There'd be conflicts of interest. For Attorney General ... these folks are lawyers! How much information can they give about previous clients! Probably not much! :)
So yes, transparency. Tax returns, donations, relationships with foreign nationals, public officials from other countries, persons of interest ... but there's only so much that someone can reasonably give up.
a) We are talking about a specific guy
b) The commenters are clearly holding him to a totally different standard
c) Unfortunately - there'd be no public servants if everything had to be disclosed. It'd be impossible. There'd be conflicts of interest. For Attorney General ... these folks are lawyers! How much information can they give about previous clients! Probably not much! :)
So yes, transparency. Tax returns, donations, relationships with foreign nationals, public officials from other countries, persons of interest ... but there's only so much that someone can reasonably give up.
> I'm not referring to this guy specifically.
You, 4 posts up. Please stop moving the goalposts.
You, 4 posts up. Please stop moving the goalposts.
My original comment was about the right for people to have private groups and do as they please.
Everyone else's comments were about 'this specific guy' - which I was responding to.
Everyone else's comments were about 'this specific guy' - which I was responding to.
>We are talking about a specific guy
A specific guy that got a lot of money anonymously and is an acting AG
A specific guy that got a lot of money anonymously and is an acting AG
I agree that it wouldn't be reasonable to include everything in the past, but anything for a period up to, during, and for a grace period after, should be disclosed.
> I'm not referring to this guy specifically.
But all your posts are arguing against people who are talking about “this guy specifically”.
At best, you are missing the point badly.
But all your posts are arguing against people who are talking about “this guy specifically”.
At best, you are missing the point badly.
When people pay you 1.2 million for influence essentially its a problem if you are also the nation's top lawyer.
Most of us aren't able to accept any money where it might impact our decisions on the job.
Most of us aren't able to accept any money where it might impact our decisions on the job.
>In a free society, I don't see anything wrong with that.
Apart for the blatant conflict of interest and the excellent scheme to funnel unknown origin money to an attorney general, there isn't...
Apart for the blatant conflict of interest and the excellent scheme to funnel unknown origin money to an attorney general, there isn't...
He wasn't attorney general, isn't attorney general, and 3 years ago no one had any inkling he might become acting AG.
Your comment amounts to "wet streets cause rain!"
Your comment amounts to "wet streets cause rain!"
Are you arguing that he became Acting Attorney General* because he he got money in a weird scheme for a "conservative advocacy group?"
No. I'm arguing that no one bribed him with the intent of having an AG in their pocket because no one had a clue 3 years ago he'd be (possibly illegally) made acting AG.
You know HN, I'd sincerely like to read arguments without having to highlight them due to your pseudo-censorship font.
The most staggering thing continues to be that there is not sustained public outrage to a great enough degree to enforce reform. Like, boiling rage that disrupts you from managing the basic details of living your regular life in a continuous, never-ending, daily manner from the moment of becoming aware of the degree of corruption until forever into the future, to such a degree that even after carefully introspecting about the pros and cons of being that unhealthily outraged, missing out on life’s joys, risking that the outrage never successfully overcomes the corrupt actors perpetrating these moral offenses, even after really thinking about all that and reflecting on the trade-offs of pursuing passions, love, family, whatever, you _still_ are left with absolutely undissipatable astronomical outrage governing your every waking decision and you pedantically boycott every company, protest everything, risk sounding like a crazy kook to normalized masses who somehow can just shrug off the outrage to live a life (which is precisely 100% of the reason why the corruption lives and grows), and your balanced opinion really, really is just that there is no possible reaction but continuous realtime outrage.
Hacker News people tend to be pretty well-off and poorly understand the concept that most people don't have the bandwidth to get disrupted in that manner. Talk of life's joys and pursuing passions doesn't make sense in lives that are completely overwhelmed with the basic details of survival, whether it's keeping up with the dynamic schedule of several 'precariat' jobs or keeping a car on the road or a cell-phone plan alive without the income to properly support it (when the dynamic schedule requires that you're reachable on such a phone). That's just the example off the top of my head but there are many other situations that arise.
Having life joys that can be disrupted by this rage is a luxury, and not nearly common enough. I do feel that's a political truism, though: change only happens when problems are serious enough to upset the well-off who have disposable income and time, and who can afford (both materially and existentially) to maintain this sort of boiling rage and do something about it.
Having life joys that can be disrupted by this rage is a luxury, and not nearly common enough. I do feel that's a political truism, though: change only happens when problems are serious enough to upset the well-off who have disposable income and time, and who can afford (both materially and existentially) to maintain this sort of boiling rage and do something about it.
Your comment seems fundamentally misguided to me and it’s very telling that your first thought is that somehow the magnitude of lifestyle privilege factors into it in any way (it does not).
Even societies in which most people are barely living at a pure subsistence level have historically had revolutions, and in fact subsistence commoners becoming angry to the point of revolution has repeatedly been one way that nature corrects concentrations of power.
I’d go even further and say that your argument is not just wrong, but dangerously wrong because it offers an excuse for why a person might not cultivate their indignant rage at the corruption. You invite them to self-pity and woe their poverty as an excuse to not direct that rage at social progress, which is unacceptable even if you’re all the way at true subsistence level poverty (most aren’t, even by world standards).
And you also create an excuse for not being upset with other people who fail to act on their indignant rage over this issue too. You can just write it off as someone not “privileged enough” to sacrifice for the sake of acting to stop corruption.
Even societies in which most people are barely living at a pure subsistence level have historically had revolutions, and in fact subsistence commoners becoming angry to the point of revolution has repeatedly been one way that nature corrects concentrations of power.
I’d go even further and say that your argument is not just wrong, but dangerously wrong because it offers an excuse for why a person might not cultivate their indignant rage at the corruption. You invite them to self-pity and woe their poverty as an excuse to not direct that rage at social progress, which is unacceptable even if you’re all the way at true subsistence level poverty (most aren’t, even by world standards).
And you also create an excuse for not being upset with other people who fail to act on their indignant rage over this issue too. You can just write it off as someone not “privileged enough” to sacrifice for the sake of acting to stop corruption.
Much of the west is more in the 'panem et circenses' camp.
My co-workers don't follow politics (except what gets shovelled at them by the red tops) and largely don't care as long as they get to go on holiday a couple of times a year and upgrade their car every few.
By and large they are comfortable and so they are happy with things as they are.
My co-workers don't follow politics (except what gets shovelled at them by the red tops) and largely don't care as long as they get to go on holiday a couple of times a year and upgrade their car every few.
By and large they are comfortable and so they are happy with things as they are.
Exactly, that is the phenomenon I pointed out in my first comment above as being deeply surprising and incongruent with the pervasiveness of the corruption. I agree it’s very real, that’s the unsettling & surprising part.
The opposite reaction is small slow steps that you can take today in local government to get less corruption, better services, better law making etc. The outrage unused is you problem here. If we all channel 1% into actually doing things we can effect we’ll feel better and maybe the trumps and Nixon’s will be less relevant. The other option of course is despair.
Don't know about despair, but if you're talking about so called "activity of small steps", you might lose if the government does enough big steps often enough to more than negate your activity. I.e. you're trying for months to get a specific regulation passed, and while that regulation gets watered down to have enough holes those in power exploit all available opportunities, reducing the quality of life of electorate, so you end up in arguably worse situation than when you started.
Steps can't be too small, and in practice that could mean they have to be pretty large. Here the opposite approach - attacking root causes - can become more productive.
Steps can't be too small, and in practice that could mean they have to be pretty large. Here the opposite approach - attacking root causes - can become more productive.
I learned about this stuff from the Robert Caro series. After reading these and the Power Broker, I find it hard to believe that it would be any different nowadays.
I don't know what the current methods would be, but why would we assume it's any better?
If it is better, it would be because:
(1) people are 'better' now - probably not true
(2) the preventative measures in place now are better - but we know the lengths that these people will go to perpetuate corruption, so I just assume they've probably found other roundabout ways.
The same goes for elections. LBJ bringing thousands of Mexicans over the border to vote in Texas elections and eventually stealing the his seat in the Senate. Why should we believe that there isn't similar violations happening now? I personally doubt the extent of corruption has changed at all, only that it is more sophisticated. I have no confidence in public elections or the sanctity of government as a result. I'm completely disillusioned and I have no intention of participating at all.
FWIW, I'm not from the USA, but I believe the same principle holds across the world
If it is better, it would be because:
(1) people are 'better' now - probably not true
(2) the preventative measures in place now are better - but we know the lengths that these people will go to perpetuate corruption, so I just assume they've probably found other roundabout ways.
The same goes for elections. LBJ bringing thousands of Mexicans over the border to vote in Texas elections and eventually stealing the his seat in the Senate. Why should we believe that there isn't similar violations happening now? I personally doubt the extent of corruption has changed at all, only that it is more sophisticated. I have no confidence in public elections or the sanctity of government as a result. I'm completely disillusioned and I have no intention of participating at all.
FWIW, I'm not from the USA, but I believe the same principle holds across the world
What is this? That election had a lot of stealing and Caro claimed Johnson stole more, but I can't find a reference to Mexican voters. It's seems an overcomplicated strategy when a local corrupt pollling place can just directly fill in fraudulent ballots and call in false counts.
I'm fetching this from 3 year old memory here but I think it was in the race vs Coke Stevens, they had trucks of Mexicans brought over the border and were given $5 per vote or something along those lines. This was in conjunction with votes of dead people, double voting etc.
That just makes you part of the problem.
It's really hard to deny that there are difference. Over time: see J Edgar Hoover, or Nixon. Or 70 years without a World War (and generally with drastically fewer wars than before).
And geographically: Canada is better than the US is better than Portugal is better than Greece is better than Iran is better than Sudan is better than North Korea...
Unless you literally believe the vote in your country has as little power as one in North Korea (i.e. zero), there is no moral justification for just cynically throwing up your arms and declaring everyone corrupt/it's all just the globalists/Bilderberg/elite/whatever. Because if enough people do that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
It's really hard to deny that there are difference. Over time: see J Edgar Hoover, or Nixon. Or 70 years without a World War (and generally with drastically fewer wars than before).
And geographically: Canada is better than the US is better than Portugal is better than Greece is better than Iran is better than Sudan is better than North Korea...
Unless you literally believe the vote in your country has as little power as one in North Korea (i.e. zero), there is no moral justification for just cynically throwing up your arms and declaring everyone corrupt/it's all just the globalists/Bilderberg/elite/whatever. Because if enough people do that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Not a discussion I really want to have but fewer wars is most certainly not a consequence of 'people becoming better'.
Regarding voting, I completely understand that my stance is not helping the situation at all and is untenable if too many people adopt it, but I truly believe that the perceived value of a vote is so out of whack with its actual value, that I (selfishly, I admit) decide to give it up entirely. Sure, some places are better than others, but I think in all countries that I'm aware of, it's still too bad for me to care about participating.
Reading political biographies will show you the gulf that exists between how politics actually works, and how the general public perceive it and use as their metric for choosing candidates.
Regarding voting, I completely understand that my stance is not helping the situation at all and is untenable if too many people adopt it, but I truly believe that the perceived value of a vote is so out of whack with its actual value, that I (selfishly, I admit) decide to give it up entirely. Sure, some places are better than others, but I think in all countries that I'm aware of, it's still too bad for me to care about participating.
Reading political biographies will show you the gulf that exists between how politics actually works, and how the general public perceive it and use as their metric for choosing candidates.
Pretty sure that scandal would last no more than a half-day in the current news firehose.
Was it a good radio station? How was their programming?
btw, 23's an interesting number. I'm sure you've noticed too.. maybe similar to this page http://www.crystalinks.com/23enigma.html
btw, 23's an interesting number. I'm sure you've noticed too.. maybe similar to this page http://www.crystalinks.com/23enigma.html
Numerology and pseudoscience are not liable to be well-received on HN.
[deleted]
> Senator Charles Percy of Illinois observed, “I am convinced that creative minds in the name of greed can concoct schemes faster than we can get legislation against them.”
That much, at least, hasn’t changed.
That much, at least, hasn’t changed.
"I don't know the solution for this"
The solution is simple - its called the "rule of LAW". These corps and gov people should be prosecuted to full extent; giving/taking bribes should be illegal just as being caught with a plane full of heroin.
The problem that we have is that law system is not really working when it comes to "big guns". They have politicians and lawyers/judges in their pockets/protecting them.
The solution is simple - its called the "rule of LAW". These corps and gov people should be prosecuted to full extent; giving/taking bribes should be illegal just as being caught with a plane full of heroin.
The problem that we have is that law system is not really working when it comes to "big guns". They have politicians and lawyers/judges in their pockets/protecting them.
Victimless (they're not really, but the victims are diffuse and don't know that the crime is happening) crimes are inherently hard to prosecute. That's because the first step in a criminal investigation is usually someone calling the police to report that something has happened.
The hard part of prosecuting a mugger or a thief is finding out and then proving who committed the crime - that a crime took place is usually obvious. The hard part of prosecuting "victimless" white-collar crimes is even knowing that anything has happened, that's before having to prove that what happened was illegal and determining exactly who did it.
The hard part of prosecuting a mugger or a thief is finding out and then proving who committed the crime - that a crime took place is usually obvious. The hard part of prosecuting "victimless" white-collar crimes is even knowing that anything has happened, that's before having to prove that what happened was illegal and determining exactly who did it.
Perhaps it's not so simple after all, if the simple solution isn't working.
[deleted]
This is wild. I honestly had no idea, but I am really glad that Hacker News showed me this. I really wonder what the implications have this has been all of this time.
The two reasons given to outlaw foreign bribery are awesome:
a) Selfishly, it has unanticipated consequences for foreign policy.
b) Altruistically, it causes developing countries to misspend money on stuff they don't really need (mostly arms).
The second is particularly compelling. Laws outlawing foreign bribery seem like a powerful weapon against the resource curse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse).
a) Selfishly, it has unanticipated consequences for foreign policy.
b) Altruistically, it causes developing countries to misspend money on stuff they don't really need (mostly arms).
The second is particularly compelling. Laws outlawing foreign bribery seem like a powerful weapon against the resource curse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse).
The part about the OECD was interesting. I can see the argument that Western countries could be at a commercial disadvantage vs. Russia and especially China. The so-called BRIC countries should somehow be encouraged to cooperate.
http://www.oecd.org/about/membersandpartners/
http://www.oecd.org/about/membersandpartners/
coup in brazil was the cut the head of BRIC. brazil was the most moderate, that had any chance of upsetting US powers in europe and americas. now it's russia or china vs the world under the US.
I'm confused -- in what sense was this the "second half of Watergate"? I don't see any obvious relation to Watergate as it's usually known.
This
> Its revelation that multinational corporations, including some of the most prestigious brands in the United States, had been making illegal contributions to political parties not only at home but in foreign countries around the world would later be described by Ray Garrett, the chairman of the SEC, as “the second half of Watergate, and by far the larger half.”
Is in reference to this:
> the Multinational Corporation Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee; the Subcommittee on International Economic Policy of the House Committee on International Relations; and the President's Task Force on Questionable Corporate Payments Abroad
See: http://www.djcl.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/FOREIGN-BRIBE...
> Its revelation that multinational corporations, including some of the most prestigious brands in the United States, had been making illegal contributions to political parties not only at home but in foreign countries around the world would later be described by Ray Garrett, the chairman of the SEC, as “the second half of Watergate, and by far the larger half.”
Is in reference to this:
> the Multinational Corporation Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee; the Subcommittee on International Economic Policy of the House Committee on International Relations; and the President's Task Force on Questionable Corporate Payments Abroad
See: http://www.djcl.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/FOREIGN-BRIBE...
The Church committee and related investigations, reforms, etc were a direct consequence of the main Watergate scandal.
The FCPA is an impressive piece of legislation and a credit to the USA. Do most other countries have equivalent laws I wonder?
It's funny that an investigation over "bribes" paid to Nixon led to laws changing and a system where US politicians are the only legal "bribery" target.
There's a difference between "bribes" and "bribes".
A bribe is usually understood to be of benefit to the politician personally. This sort of corruption is actually incredibly rare in the US.
What is, unfortunately, very common are payments to their campaigns. These are legal and, since Citizen United, basically unlimited. There are, however, rather strict rules as to how they can be used. And as that Republican idiot from California is currently experiencing, these rules are enforced.
I'm not making apologies for the undeniable harms of the latter practice. But it is different, and marginally less evil . As to the relative evilness: the "traditional" bribe is strictly more useful to a politicians, because they always had the option to convert it to campaign money. That option does not exist in the other direction.
I think it's important to appreciate such nuances. First, because it stops the corroding effect of cynicism on your soul. And, second, if we condemn everything at the same level of maximum evilness, any change that is not instant paradise is indistinguishable to the status quo. Because Paradise no longer exists (or is now a strip club), nothing will ever happen.
A bribe is usually understood to be of benefit to the politician personally. This sort of corruption is actually incredibly rare in the US.
What is, unfortunately, very common are payments to their campaigns. These are legal and, since Citizen United, basically unlimited. There are, however, rather strict rules as to how they can be used. And as that Republican idiot from California is currently experiencing, these rules are enforced.
I'm not making apologies for the undeniable harms of the latter practice. But it is different, and marginally less evil . As to the relative evilness: the "traditional" bribe is strictly more useful to a politicians, because they always had the option to convert it to campaign money. That option does not exist in the other direction.
I think it's important to appreciate such nuances. First, because it stops the corroding effect of cynicism on your soul. And, second, if we condemn everything at the same level of maximum evilness, any change that is not instant paradise is indistinguishable to the status quo. Because Paradise no longer exists (or is now a strip club), nothing will ever happen.
Politicians getting rich isn't the main problem I have with bribes, so I don't really see why this is a meaningful difference.
Bribes buy influence. “Payments to campaign” buy influence. Unlimited “payments to campaign” buy unlimited influence. With a given amount of resources at the congressman’s office, unlimited “payments to the campaign” buy up influence at the expense of other constituents. Which is what bribes do. Before Citizens United, I may have agreed with you. Not anymore.
I believe it's almost tautological that a politician would prefer personal cash instead of campaign donations. Among other things, campaign donations cannot be used to buy themselves a boat or ensure luxury in retirement.
It's a pretty good example of the point I'm trying to make that my post is being downvoted, presumably by people of the mindset of the other reply, i. e. "Nope. U STUPID. Burn all politicians". I completely agree that Citizen United is atrocious. But blanket hate and cynicism is the surefire way to populism, and the ensuing wide lurches across the political spectrum.
It just seems far too many people think everything is so bad it's time to get out the guillotines. That proposition strikes me as rather shortsighted, considering today still would seem to be the best time in history to be alive.
A revolution acts a lot like random shuffling. If you consider society as a puzzle, which is not done, but more complete than ever before, throwing it in the air and letting the pieces fall where they may seems unlikely to produce a more perfect arrangement, just by the principles of entropy.
It's a pretty good example of the point I'm trying to make that my post is being downvoted, presumably by people of the mindset of the other reply, i. e. "Nope. U STUPID. Burn all politicians". I completely agree that Citizen United is atrocious. But blanket hate and cynicism is the surefire way to populism, and the ensuing wide lurches across the political spectrum.
It just seems far too many people think everything is so bad it's time to get out the guillotines. That proposition strikes me as rather shortsighted, considering today still would seem to be the best time in history to be alive.
A revolution acts a lot like random shuffling. If you consider society as a puzzle, which is not done, but more complete than ever before, throwing it in the air and letting the pieces fall where they may seems unlikely to produce a more perfect arrangement, just by the principles of entropy.
That assumes that progress in civilization is a forward path and that there are no local minima that are both extremely difficult to get out of given the institutions that got them there and dangerously unstable. Entropy eats away at systems no matter the path we chose and there is no guarantee that the end result of our current path won't be worse than a traumatic reshuffle now.
I'm not advocating revolution, having seen the end result of one first hand, but to say that revolution is shortsighted entirely misses the forrest for the trees. All complex systems, be they biological organisms or deep learning neural networks, need randomness injected into them or they will fail to respond to the randomness of the environment around them. In the case of societies and organisms, that could very well mean extinction.
It's a risk-reward calculation like any action.
I'm not advocating revolution, having seen the end result of one first hand, but to say that revolution is shortsighted entirely misses the forrest for the trees. All complex systems, be they biological organisms or deep learning neural networks, need randomness injected into them or they will fail to respond to the randomness of the environment around them. In the case of societies and organisms, that could very well mean extinction.
It's a risk-reward calculation like any action.
Elections are supposed to be bloodless revolutions. If you can't effect change through the electoral system, then the non violent solution is to revolutionize how we vote.
Relevant videos (IMO)
First Past The Post Voting - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
Range Voting - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3GFG0sXIig
Single Transferable Vote - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI
Alternative Vote - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE
Mixed-Member Proportional Representation - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0I-sdoSXU
Bonus video
This video will make you angry - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
Relevant videos (IMO)
First Past The Post Voting - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
Range Voting - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3GFG0sXIig
Single Transferable Vote - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI
Alternative Vote - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE
Mixed-Member Proportional Representation - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0I-sdoSXU
Bonus video
This video will make you angry - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
I hate to be a downer, but that would require an amendment that drastically hurts both parties. Just try and imagine it passing, remembering that you would be asking your elected representative to give up some of their power.
No it wouldn't. Voting methods and how presidential electors are chosen are entirely up to the states.
I'd want a revolution like I'd want to have my molecules scrambled by standing in the LHC beam - sure, maybe I'll end up in a superior configuration, but the odds are that if I am at all happy today in even the slightest way, a randomly chosen state will regress me to the mean of complete, brutal dysfunction.
Violence tends to be the dynamic in which power is doled out in the anarchy of post-revolutionary states. Whether it's direct violence against political groups or against honest hardworking citizens so their property can be handed to another group. Usually it's a little of both.
Did you experience a revolution firsthand? Learned something from it?
While you're not wrong that campaign donations aren't a direct benefit to the politicians, you're arguing on a too limited scope.
Donating to a campaign buys influence. That politician is keen to keep a good relationship to the donators do keep the money flowing, and get good deals outside the campaign, get positions that pays him/her directly ect. In really bad cases a donor can blatantly say "I have this new boat, since I've used it once it's only worth half of the original sales price - want to buy it? And completely omit that it was actually build for the donatee". That is just some of the examples of indirect payment involved in blatant corruption.
Donating to a campaign buys influence. That politician is keen to keep a good relationship to the donators do keep the money flowing, and get good deals outside the campaign, get positions that pays him/her directly ect. In really bad cases a donor can blatantly say "I have this new boat, since I've used it once it's only worth half of the original sales price - want to buy it? And completely omit that it was actually build for the donatee". That is just some of the examples of indirect payment involved in blatant corruption.
> I think it's important to appreciate such nuances.
I think this is complete nonsense. Where you see nuances I see direct conflict of interest. There are no pragmatic approaches to be made here, because they would simply not be beneficial in any case but for involved parties.
Strong condemnation and punishment of corruptions is very viable to drive up the price. For every little penny.
The more outgoing form of cynism is taking it up the... and fighting corruption isn't some inquisition to the next revolution. That is a strawman.
I think this is complete nonsense. Where you see nuances I see direct conflict of interest. There are no pragmatic approaches to be made here, because they would simply not be beneficial in any case but for involved parties.
Strong condemnation and punishment of corruptions is very viable to drive up the price. For every little penny.
The more outgoing form of cynism is taking it up the... and fighting corruption isn't some inquisition to the next revolution. That is a strawman.
Just because they’d prefer one doesn’t necessarily mean that the other is all that much less effective.
This is what the bribes buy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics)
I can show you the increase in politicians turning into lobbyists over the years or you can research it. I know which documentary shows the number (Saving Capitalism) but don’t have time to look it up at this moment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics)
I can show you the increase in politicians turning into lobbyists over the years or you can research it. I know which documentary shows the number (Saving Capitalism) but don’t have time to look it up at this moment.
Citizens United does not allow unlimited (or any) payments to a campaign. Citizens United was about the rights of a corporation to spend money publishing its own speech. Political speech is expressly protected by the first amendment, and the court decided that restraint of it was unconstitutional: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
> Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy—it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people—political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence. Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints or to distinguish among different speakers, which may be a means to control content. (...) Political speech is indispensable to decision-making in a democracy, and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation. (...) All speakers, including individuals and the media, use money amassed from the economic marketplace to fund their speech, and the First Amendment protects the resulting speech.
What Citizens United wanted to do was distribute a documentary film critical of Hillary Clinton.
If someone feels that Citizens United was wrongly decided, then I would encourage that person to read through the case in detail to understand the issues evaluated by the court - specifically, the contradictions in reasoning, chilling effects, and violations of precedent that would result from deciding the case in the alternative. Difficult topics would need to be untangled such as: why should it be unlawful for Citizens United to distribute a political documentary when it's OK for media producers like Fox News or CNN or 60 Minutes or Netflix to do so? They engage in political speech whenever critiquing a policy position or candidate.
One must consider the sweeping consequences of what it would mean to restrain corporations, including the news media, from engaging in political speech. How does journalism and freedom of the press remain in this world, or what bright line distinguishes Citizens United from any other producer of documentaries like e.g. Michael Moore (Fahrenheit 9/11)?
> Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy—it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people—political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence. Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints or to distinguish among different speakers, which may be a means to control content. (...) Political speech is indispensable to decision-making in a democracy, and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation. (...) All speakers, including individuals and the media, use money amassed from the economic marketplace to fund their speech, and the First Amendment protects the resulting speech.
What Citizens United wanted to do was distribute a documentary film critical of Hillary Clinton.
If someone feels that Citizens United was wrongly decided, then I would encourage that person to read through the case in detail to understand the issues evaluated by the court - specifically, the contradictions in reasoning, chilling effects, and violations of precedent that would result from deciding the case in the alternative. Difficult topics would need to be untangled such as: why should it be unlawful for Citizens United to distribute a political documentary when it's OK for media producers like Fox News or CNN or 60 Minutes or Netflix to do so? They engage in political speech whenever critiquing a policy position or candidate.
One must consider the sweeping consequences of what it would mean to restrain corporations, including the news media, from engaging in political speech. How does journalism and freedom of the press remain in this world, or what bright line distinguishes Citizens United from any other producer of documentaries like e.g. Michael Moore (Fahrenheit 9/11)?
The entire sweeping consequence of citizens united was to vastly increase the amount of money in politics, now hidden behind the free speech rights of corps. Corps should not be considered people. all this did was provide a mechanism for very wealthy people to influence politics and hide it much better than before. can you possible claim this is a good thing?
There was a politician and activist from Montana on (US) NPR radio today who advocated getting congress to pass an act that /corporations aren't people/. If anyone's new to the issue, Google 'Thom Hartmann corporate personhood', you'll get the flimsy history of how it came to be. Making them not be people would solve a lot of the problems of money in politics. Too bad there's now so much precedence, I guess.
nonono, you're not hearing me -
if something is wrong and illegal, you just change the law to make it legal and then it's not wrong, see. so these 'bribes' you are talking about arent really bribes, because they are legal.
obvious. duh.
if something is wrong and illegal, you just change the law to make it legal and then it's not wrong, see. so these 'bribes' you are talking about arent really bribes, because they are legal.
obvious. duh.
No, actually, there's no difference.
There is a difference when it comes to politics. Politicians take a dimmer view of bribery and smear campaigns when they occur outside an election season context.
It's always election season
I know, I was making fun of the NYT's ridiculous apologetic attitude towards politicians: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18466253
What was once cash in a brown envelope is now the high paid job once they leave office. Envelopes stuffed with cash have become rare, the latter have grown hugely. The net effect on a politician's personal wealth and the likely effects on ethics of public office are similar.
Some sort of politician's equivalent of a ten year non-compete clause seems in order.
Some sort of politician's equivalent of a ten year non-compete clause seems in order.
Obama ran that as a campaign promise for his cabinet and then promptly ignored it.
I remember when he campaigned for whistleblower's rights and repealing 'bush era spying'...
... promised to be "the most open administration ever" - and ended up being more closed even than GWB. There's really something to the idea that paying lip service mentally gets you off the hook.
But remember how quickly he followed through on closing Guantanamo Bay?
Donating to a campaign is far from the only way to buy influence. I can donate to a politicians charity or invite them to an all expenses paid speaking engagement where I also pay a speaking fee.
Im both of these examples the politician will have MUCH more discretion in how to spend the money.
Im both of these examples the politician will have MUCH more discretion in how to spend the money.
That's a counterproductive distinction to make because you lose the soundbite game.
If you have a paragraph to make the point it's reasonable, but pushing back on the rebranding of lesser bribery as "lobbying" is a very important first step.
If you have a paragraph to make the point it's reasonable, but pushing back on the rebranding of lesser bribery as "lobbying" is a very important first step.
[deleted]
"funny"
As in convenient, if you are playing this game by an effective set of rules yet
If you're interested in this era and all the various scandals around the time of Watergate (but not necessarily related to it), Rachel Maddow's "Bag Man" is a pretty good podcast that focuses on Agnew and the team of prosecutors investigating him: https://www.msnbc.com/bagman
None of this is surprising at all, and most likely it’s chump change compared with the institutional criminality going on right now, today. Ever wonder why the price of insulin goes up 5% per year, every year? Yeah. Bribes, price fixing, and market manipulation.
Reminds me of the Stupid Watergate "series" (2 episodes) from John Oliver's Last Week Tonight:
1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVFdsl29s_Q
2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOVPStnVgvU
1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVFdsl29s_Q
2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOVPStnVgvU
[deleted]
I would be more shocked if corporations weren't overtly bribing people. Billionaires and PACs as well.
Church's other investigations were bigger, worse and also forgotten by the public.
Church's other investigations were bigger, worse and also forgotten by the public.
its against the law now for us corporations to pay bribes, and it's not too uncommon for them to get caught and have penalties. https://www.sec.gov/spotlight/fcpa/fcpa-cases.shtml
The trouble here presumably is that the penalties are anything less than jailing of the entire C-suite and/or complete dissolution of the corporation.
And while we're at it: death penalty for any crime (or misdemeanor). Including the criminal's family!
That should stop these murderers and jaywalkers once and for all!
That should stop these murderers and jaywalkers once and for all!
While we all appreciate your strawman, I would encourage you to actually think about situations where the law actually does implement punishments that are beyond what would be considered proportionate, and when it does the opposite.
Paying a penalty for getting caught breaking a law sounds a bit like a bribe to me.
> Watergate was a matter of a bunch of guys from the Republican National Committee breaking in a Democratic Party office for essentially unknown reasons and doing no damage. Okay, that's petty burglary, it's not a big deal. Well, at the exact time that Watergate was discovered, there were exposures in the courts and through the Freedom of Information Act of massive FBI operations to undermine political freedom in the United States, running through every administration back to Roosevelt, but really picking up under Kennedy. It was called "COINTELPRO" (short for "Counterintelligence Program"), and it included a vast range of things.
> It included Gestapo-style assassination of a Black Panther leader; it included organizing race riots in an effort to destroy the black movements; it included attacks on the American Indian Movement, on the women's movement, you name it. It included fifteen years of FBI disruption of the Socialist Worker's Party - that meant regular FBI burglaries, stealing membership lists and using them to threaten people, going to businesses and getting members fired from their jobs, and so on. Well, that fact alone-the fact that for fifteen years the FBI had been burglarizing and trying to undermine a legal political party - is already vastly more important than the fact that a bunch of Keystone Kops broke into the Democratic National Committee headquarters one time. The Socialist Workers Party is a legal political party, after all - the fact that they're a weak political party doesn't mean they have less rights than the Democrats. And this wasn't a bunch of gangsters, this was the national political police: that's very serious. And it didn't happen once in the Watergate office complex, is was going on for fifteen years, under every administration. And keep in mind, the Socialist Workers Party episode is just some tiny footnote to COINTELPRO. In comparison to this, Watergate is a tea party.
> Well, look at the comparison in treatment - I mean, you're aware of the comparison in treatment, that's why you know about Watergate and you don't know about COINTELPRO. So what does that tell you? What it tells you is, people in power will defend themselves. The Democratic Party represents about half of corporate power, and those people are able to defend themselves; the Socialist Workers Party represents no power, the Black Panthers don't represent any power, the American Indian Movement doesn't represent any power - so you can do anything you want to them.
> Or take a look at the Nixon administration's famous "Enemies List," which came out in the course of Watergate…You've heard of that, but did you hear about the assassination of Fred Hampton? No. Nothing ever happened to any of the people who were on the Enemies List, which I know perfectly well, because I was on it - and it wasn't because I was on it that it made the front pages. But the FBI and the Chicago police assassinated a Black Panther leader as he lay in his bed one night during the Nixon administration (On December 4, 1969). Well, if the press had any integrity at all, if the Washington Post had any integrity, what they would have said is, "Watergate is totally insignificant and innocuous, who cares about any of that in comparison with these other things." But that's not what happened, obviously. And that just shows again, very dramatically, how the press is lined up with power.
-- Noam Chomsky, "Understanding Power" (2002)
> It included Gestapo-style assassination of a Black Panther leader; it included organizing race riots in an effort to destroy the black movements; it included attacks on the American Indian Movement, on the women's movement, you name it. It included fifteen years of FBI disruption of the Socialist Worker's Party - that meant regular FBI burglaries, stealing membership lists and using them to threaten people, going to businesses and getting members fired from their jobs, and so on. Well, that fact alone-the fact that for fifteen years the FBI had been burglarizing and trying to undermine a legal political party - is already vastly more important than the fact that a bunch of Keystone Kops broke into the Democratic National Committee headquarters one time. The Socialist Workers Party is a legal political party, after all - the fact that they're a weak political party doesn't mean they have less rights than the Democrats. And this wasn't a bunch of gangsters, this was the national political police: that's very serious. And it didn't happen once in the Watergate office complex, is was going on for fifteen years, under every administration. And keep in mind, the Socialist Workers Party episode is just some tiny footnote to COINTELPRO. In comparison to this, Watergate is a tea party.
> Well, look at the comparison in treatment - I mean, you're aware of the comparison in treatment, that's why you know about Watergate and you don't know about COINTELPRO. So what does that tell you? What it tells you is, people in power will defend themselves. The Democratic Party represents about half of corporate power, and those people are able to defend themselves; the Socialist Workers Party represents no power, the Black Panthers don't represent any power, the American Indian Movement doesn't represent any power - so you can do anything you want to them.
> Or take a look at the Nixon administration's famous "Enemies List," which came out in the course of Watergate…You've heard of that, but did you hear about the assassination of Fred Hampton? No. Nothing ever happened to any of the people who were on the Enemies List, which I know perfectly well, because I was on it - and it wasn't because I was on it that it made the front pages. But the FBI and the Chicago police assassinated a Black Panther leader as he lay in his bed one night during the Nixon administration (On December 4, 1969). Well, if the press had any integrity at all, if the Washington Post had any integrity, what they would have said is, "Watergate is totally insignificant and innocuous, who cares about any of that in comparison with these other things." But that's not what happened, obviously. And that just shows again, very dramatically, how the press is lined up with power.
-- Noam Chomsky, "Understanding Power" (2002)
carrja99(1)
bluetwo(1)
cft(1)
The left thinks bad corporations are responsible for the ills of society, while the right thinks bad government is responsible. I think we just need to understand that A. both sides of the bribe are wrong and B. big is bad.
I don't know the solution for this - absence of government just leads to less restrictions for corporations, and absence of corporations will mean that worse corporations will be tolerated by the market.
I don't know the solution for this - absence of government just leads to less restrictions for corporations, and absence of corporations will mean that worse corporations will be tolerated by the market.
> The left thinks bad corporations are responsible for the ills of society, while the right thinks bad government is responsible.
This is both a strawman and entirely irrelevant. What's more informative is what both sides do once in power.
The Democrats are quite happy to cut taxes, subsidize all kinds of corporate incentives (see Amazon in NY), and have not actively taken an antitrust stance since the 90s. Meanwhile, the Republicans are quite happy to have a HUGE government, as long as most of those expenditures are in the military and not in social programs. Neither party is particularly anti-corporate. The Democrats are certainly more willing to reign in corporate power, but this is purely in the marginal sense. Consider that copyright extensions over the last 50 years have enjoyed broad, bi-partisan support. As have pro-corporate trade deals like the TPP.
The most stark policy differences between the left and the right in the United States are in the realm of social and cultural issues: abortion, LGBTQ rights, guns. There is no mainstream party that has a substantially adversarial relationship with corporate power.
This is both a strawman and entirely irrelevant. What's more informative is what both sides do once in power.
The Democrats are quite happy to cut taxes, subsidize all kinds of corporate incentives (see Amazon in NY), and have not actively taken an antitrust stance since the 90s. Meanwhile, the Republicans are quite happy to have a HUGE government, as long as most of those expenditures are in the military and not in social programs. Neither party is particularly anti-corporate. The Democrats are certainly more willing to reign in corporate power, but this is purely in the marginal sense. Consider that copyright extensions over the last 50 years have enjoyed broad, bi-partisan support. As have pro-corporate trade deals like the TPP.
The most stark policy differences between the left and the right in the United States are in the realm of social and cultural issues: abortion, LGBTQ rights, guns. There is no mainstream party that has a substantially adversarial relationship with corporate power.
Things weren't always this way. The US used to have a true labor party. I think the pendulum is already starting to swing back.
You're ignoring a whole lot of differences between the current and previous administration. There's a slightly outdated summary at https://www.govdocs.com/webinar-recap-trump-administration-a....
Among the highlights are minimum wage increases, OSHA enforcement, transparency requirements for government contractors and a whole lot more.
Appointments to the Labour Board, as well as to the courts, could have rather significant impact on precedent. As but one issue that will be central in the near future is the treatment of Uber drivers and similar, and their classification as contractors/employees. A two-seats swing on the Supreme Court is almost guaranteed to have changed the outcome of that trial when it eventually reaches the court.
As to the "social issues" mentioned by OP, it makes me a bit uneasy to see them commonly referred to as separate from labor law. Workplace anti-discrimination law is obviously labor law as well. It may not affect you or me. But neither does the minimum wage. When the latter is considered "labor law" and the former isn't, I wonder what the reason for this sort of "othering" can be.
Among the highlights are minimum wage increases, OSHA enforcement, transparency requirements for government contractors and a whole lot more.
Appointments to the Labour Board, as well as to the courts, could have rather significant impact on precedent. As but one issue that will be central in the near future is the treatment of Uber drivers and similar, and their classification as contractors/employees. A two-seats swing on the Supreme Court is almost guaranteed to have changed the outcome of that trial when it eventually reaches the court.
As to the "social issues" mentioned by OP, it makes me a bit uneasy to see them commonly referred to as separate from labor law. Workplace anti-discrimination law is obviously labor law as well. It may not affect you or me. But neither does the minimum wage. When the latter is considered "labor law" and the former isn't, I wonder what the reason for this sort of "othering" can be.
The Federal Minimum wage has remained at $7.25/hour since 2009 when it was increased under the Obama administration.
As you could learn from the linked summary, there was an increase in the pipeline that was canned/delayed by the new administration.
Yes. The core cause of many of our problems is how capitalism is broken. Between removing individual contribution limits [0], unlimited monetary influence from Super PACs [1], and our weakening Antitrust laws (that somehow allowed AT&T and Time Warner to merge!), it's no wonder we're having the economic problems we have today.
But of course no politician talks about these things. Capitalism has not failed us; our politicians have failed us. We need to fix capitalism. Block giant mergers, break apart monopolies, ease the burden on small business, etc. More competition is better for everyone (except big corporations of course).
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/us/politics/supreme-court...
[1] https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php
But of course no politician talks about these things. Capitalism has not failed us; our politicians have failed us. We need to fix capitalism. Block giant mergers, break apart monopolies, ease the burden on small business, etc. More competition is better for everyone (except big corporations of course).
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/us/politics/supreme-court...
[1] https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php
ta2987(1)
There is no voice with any real institutional power in American politics that is seriously opposed to corporate hegemony. There’s no labor party.
That fact is unusual and anomalous in modern political systems and is causing massive instability and unpredictability of outcomes.
That fact is unusual and anomalous in modern political systems and is causing massive instability and unpredictability of outcomes.
That fact is unusual...
Not at all. European socialist parties have been migrating to a, as a previous commenter put it, "cultural" agenda: feminism, LGTB, eco... some of the issues are favorable or neutral to workers, but some others, like inmigration policies are actually harming, or at least perceived as such. The result is that these parties are sinking and their votes going to both extremes of the political spectrum.
Not at all. European socialist parties have been migrating to a, as a previous commenter put it, "cultural" agenda: feminism, LGTB, eco... some of the issues are favorable or neutral to workers, but some others, like inmigration policies are actually harming, or at least perceived as such. The result is that these parties are sinking and their votes going to both extremes of the political spectrum.
> The left thinks bad corporations are responsible for the ills of society,
No, we don't.
> while the right thinks bad government is responsible.
More “libertarians” than “the right”; they overlap but not are not equivalent. (In fact, libertarians also overlap with the left.)
> absence of government just leads to less restrictions for corporations
No, because corporations are creatures of government. Absence of government (or just absence of government chartering corporations) means no corporations, not unregulated corporations.
No, we don't.
> while the right thinks bad government is responsible.
More “libertarians” than “the right”; they overlap but not are not equivalent. (In fact, libertarians also overlap with the left.)
> absence of government just leads to less restrictions for corporations
No, because corporations are creatures of government. Absence of government (or just absence of government chartering corporations) means no corporations, not unregulated corporations.
Absence of government chartering corporations was a thing not that long ago. It doesn't mean no big businesses, it just means a return to partnerships and personal liabilities as the primary entity. Some businesses today still operate on these older principals, notably law firms. They seem to do their evil well enough despite not being corporations. So I doubt that much would change.
Are there any law firms that grow as big as transnationals?
Jones day. Largest parnership in the world iirc.
My memory is telling me there's a writeup on Goldman Sachs risk taking since becoming publicly traded, versus when it was a partnership. And the increase in risk taking becoming a corporation is a real effect.
> Absence of government chartering corporations was a thing not that long ago.
Governments chartering corporations as a widespread practice is older than (and arguably key to) completing the transition to a generally capitalist economic system.
> Some businesses today still operate on these older principals, notably law firms.
Law firms are often professional corporations, and those that aren't are often LLCs or LLPs, which are also creatures of government newer than, and deriving in design (in part) from corporations.
Governments chartering corporations as a widespread practice is older than (and arguably key to) completing the transition to a generally capitalist economic system.
> Some businesses today still operate on these older principals, notably law firms.
Law firms are often professional corporations, and those that aren't are often LLCs or LLPs, which are also creatures of government newer than, and deriving in design (in part) from corporations.
Even if they aren't a corporation in name, capitalism naturally concentrates power with the richest groups of people. Without some external factor draining wealth from the wealthiest they will eventually soak up the entire monetary system and crash it. Capitalism is a positive feedback loop, like an open mic next to an amplified speaker, and we're pushing the mic closer and closer each year.
Thus far nobody has found a better institution that can act as a check on excessive concentration of wealth.
Thus far nobody has found a better institution that can act as a check on excessive concentration of wealth.
> soak up the entire monetary system and crash it
There's no evidence of that ever happening, or even close to it.
Consider the Hunt bros who attempted to corner the silver market. They paid higher and higher prices for it, then were left holding the bag when the market price for silver crashed.
There's no evidence of that ever happening, or even close to it.
Consider the Hunt bros who attempted to corner the silver market. They paid higher and higher prices for it, then were left holding the bag when the market price for silver crashed.
There is an argument that portions of the middle ages had exactly this problem, as the monarchies soaked up all of the wealth and the peasantry was unable make much headway economically.
The so called Guilded Age in the US was also arguably heading in this direction, and was only broken up by massive wars and extremely tax happy federal governments.
The so called Guilded Age in the US was also arguably heading in this direction, and was only broken up by massive wars and extremely tax happy federal governments.
> The so called Guilded Age
Gilded Age. [0] (Though “Guilded Age” is a good alternative name for the medieval period.) They are homophones, but not synonyms.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilded_Age
Gilded Age. [0] (Though “Guilded Age” is a good alternative name for the medieval period.) They are homophones, but not synonyms.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilded_Age
The middle ages didn't have much of a banking system, nor did they have a fiat money system. There wasn't a system to crash. Besides, feudalism isn't capitalism.
The Guilded Age saw an enormous growth in the middle class.
The Guilded Age saw an enormous growth in the middle class.
And also enormous amounts of abject poverty and outright wage slavery. That's the point. The system was becoming seriously unbalanced and it took government action (and a couple of wars) to bring us to the boom times of the 50s and 60s.
Yet widespread poverty decreased during those times. The middle class arose from the poor class - immigrants to America were poor, not middle class.
The Great Depression is an example.
I've never heard anyone attribute the GD to people so rich they crashed the monetary system.
You don't say so explicitly but your argument seems to assume that the "system" is a zero-sum game, which is not true.
No zero sum, but wealth is still a limited resource. It has to be to have any meaning.
If you mean "limited" as in at any point of time there is a fixed amount of wealth, then sure. But wealth is being created constantly. Recessions can put a short term dent in this progress but overall the progress over time is pretty impressive.
Take a look at the GDP per capital since 1960: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=global+gdp+per+capita
Looks like per capita GDP has increased by a factor of 20 since 1960.
Take a look at the GDP per capital since 1960: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=global+gdp+per+capita
Looks like per capita GDP has increased by a factor of 20 since 1960.
> capitalism naturally concentrates power with the richest groups of people
By definition, this is true of all systems.
By definition, this is true of all systems.
To disagree with this, you have to not think that money is power.
> Even if they aren't a corporation in name, capitalism naturally concentrates power with the richest groups of people.
Sure, but you've gotta concentrate it somewhere. Concentrating it entirely in bureaucrats hasn't worked out very well.
> Without some external factor draining wealth from the wealthiest they will eventually soak up the entire monetary system and crash it
Hmm? What?
> Capitalism is a positive feedback loop, like an open mic next to an amplified speaker, and we're pushing the mic closer and closer each year.
That's an interesting metaphor, but is it true? We've had capitalism for quite a while. When does the implosion start?
Sure, but you've gotta concentrate it somewhere. Concentrating it entirely in bureaucrats hasn't worked out very well.
> Without some external factor draining wealth from the wealthiest they will eventually soak up the entire monetary system and crash it
Hmm? What?
> Capitalism is a positive feedback loop, like an open mic next to an amplified speaker, and we're pushing the mic closer and closer each year.
That's an interesting metaphor, but is it true? We've had capitalism for quite a while. When does the implosion start?
The mainstream liberal opinion is that corporations should a) be regulated by a sufficiently funded independent government agency, b) pay taxes, and c) be required to limit contributions or at least disclose campaign expenditures
The only people advocating the destruction of corporations are actual anarchists and anarcho-communists.
A large chunk of the right believes in the wholesale destruction of government agencies- they don't think EPA should even exist. But the equivalent opinion on the left has no political power at all. The leftiest member of Congress is not calling for a Worker's Revolution.
The only people advocating the destruction of corporations are actual anarchists and anarcho-communists.
A large chunk of the right believes in the wholesale destruction of government agencies- they don't think EPA should even exist. But the equivalent opinion on the left has no political power at all. The leftiest member of Congress is not calling for a Worker's Revolution.
The equivalent opinion of "disband one agency" is not a "Worker's Revolution", it's "disband one corporation/industry", and there are plenty of those opinions on the left (tech monopolies, oil/gas, defense contractors, etc.)
The equivalent argument to a Worker's Revolution on the right would be the disbanding of the Federal government or a reduction to independence-day levels. That opinion does not exist in Congress either.
The equivalent argument to a Worker's Revolution on the right would be the disbanding of the Federal government or a reduction to independence-day levels. That opinion does not exist in Congress either.
Saying corporations should be broken up is not the same as saying there should be no corporations. The former is just old-fashioned antitrust and yeah, definitely has some sway on the left.
A split-up Google just makes bunch of corporations; abolishing tech corporations entirely and taking them over as a public utility or worker's cooperative is what I'm getting at. "This particular corporation is too big" is a mainstream-but-lefty opinion; "this corporation should be expropriated and owned by the public" is not a mainstream opinion.
Steve Bannon is on record as wanting to dismantle the "administrative state", he held the ear of the President for a while. The head of the CFPB doesn't think the CFPB should exist. Paul Ryan wants to privatise Social Security. "Shrink government enough to drown it in a bathtub" is a Grover Norquist quote. They may not want to roll back the entire government to Independence Day but they do want to take it back to the 19th century if it means they can cut taxes. They don't just want less regulation; they want the feds to get out of the business of regulating industry at all.
A split-up Google just makes bunch of corporations; abolishing tech corporations entirely and taking them over as a public utility or worker's cooperative is what I'm getting at. "This particular corporation is too big" is a mainstream-but-lefty opinion; "this corporation should be expropriated and owned by the public" is not a mainstream opinion.
Steve Bannon is on record as wanting to dismantle the "administrative state", he held the ear of the President for a while. The head of the CFPB doesn't think the CFPB should exist. Paul Ryan wants to privatise Social Security. "Shrink government enough to drown it in a bathtub" is a Grover Norquist quote. They may not want to roll back the entire government to Independence Day but they do want to take it back to the 19th century if it means they can cut taxes. They don't just want less regulation; they want the feds to get out of the business of regulating industry at all.
I'm not sure if we're speaking past each other, but it seems we're both making the same point.
The right is not advocating for the complete destruction of the Government. The left is not advocating for the removal of corporations as a legal entity.
Those two positions are equivalent and neither side has cachet at the moment.
The destruction of certain government agencies is closer to the breakup of certain corporations or industries than it is to the right-equivalent of a Worker's Revolution.
The right is not advocating for the complete destruction of the Government. The left is not advocating for the removal of corporations as a legal entity.
Those two positions are equivalent and neither side has cachet at the moment.
The destruction of certain government agencies is closer to the breakup of certain corporations or industries than it is to the right-equivalent of a Worker's Revolution.
I guess I'm equating "oil corporations should not exist" with "oil corporations should not be regulated by the feds". The latter seems to have some sway with the current administration, see:
https://slate.com/culture/2018/11/john-oliver-last-week-toni...
This guy does not seem worried that he might look a bit cozy with the industry he is supposedly regulating; he's practically asking the industry to ask him for leniency.
There are countries with state oil companies and nobody is advocating for that; but there seems to be people advocating for the total abdication of regulation of oil companies. If there's a continuum between "state run" and "fully unregulated", the "fully unregulated" side seems to have a certain amount of sway whereas the other end doesn't.
https://slate.com/culture/2018/11/john-oliver-last-week-toni...
This guy does not seem worried that he might look a bit cozy with the industry he is supposedly regulating; he's practically asking the industry to ask him for leniency.
There are countries with state oil companies and nobody is advocating for that; but there seems to be people advocating for the total abdication of regulation of oil companies. If there's a continuum between "state run" and "fully unregulated", the "fully unregulated" side seems to have a certain amount of sway whereas the other end doesn't.
"The right is not advocating for the complete destruction of the Government."
Government is not the solution, it is the problem. -- Ronald Reagan.
Shrink government so that it can be drowned in a bathtub. -- Grover Nordquist.
Government is not the solution, it is the problem. -- Ronald Reagan.
Shrink government so that it can be drowned in a bathtub. -- Grover Nordquist.
That "corporation/industry" combination is bizarre. Those are very different things. Disbanding a corporation means others will fill in. Disbanding an entire industry is basically unheard of and would be incredibly disruptive.
Consider the current call on the left to abolish ICE. The right paints this as meaning "abolish the border patrol" but that's not what it actually means. The call is to either pass the responsibilities to other agencies, or create a new agency. That would be like disbanding a corporation.
Now consider the calls on the right to abolish the EPA. The intent is not that the EPA's responsibilities get picked up by other agencies or passed to a new agency. The intent is that those responsibilities cease.
I don't see any movement to disband the industries you mention. The closest would be oil/gas, and even then the movement is not to disband them, but to regulate them so that they actually bear the costs of the damage they cause, and let the market take its natural course from there.
Consider the current call on the left to abolish ICE. The right paints this as meaning "abolish the border patrol" but that's not what it actually means. The call is to either pass the responsibilities to other agencies, or create a new agency. That would be like disbanding a corporation.
Now consider the calls on the right to abolish the EPA. The intent is not that the EPA's responsibilities get picked up by other agencies or passed to a new agency. The intent is that those responsibilities cease.
I don't see any movement to disband the industries you mention. The closest would be oil/gas, and even then the movement is not to disband them, but to regulate them so that they actually bear the costs of the damage they cause, and let the market take its natural course from there.
I'd disagree given "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." is the most famous Grover Norquist quote, and he spent a good portion of his life towards doing this very thing.
>The equivalent argument to a Worker's Revolution on the right would be the disbanding of the Federal government or a reduction to independence-day levels. That opinion does not exist in Congress either.
Rep Ron Paul (R-TX) until 2013.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Pau...
Rep Ron Paul (R-TX) until 2013.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Pau...
Well said. Re leftiest members of Congress - for one thing, they won't be very lefty as long as having a religion is a virtual requirement:
"The only open atheist in congressional history was California Democrat Pete Stark, who spent three decades in Congress before admitting to his lack of faith"
https://bigthink.com/21st-century-spirituality/how-many-open...
"The only open atheist in congressional history was California Democrat Pete Stark, who spent three decades in Congress before admitting to his lack of faith"
https://bigthink.com/21st-century-spirituality/how-many-open...
> for one thing, they won't be very lefty as long as being a christian is a virtual requirement
The idea that there aren't any very lefty Christians is...well, not entirely surprising given the logb-standing “left v religion” media narrative the US right spent so many decades fostering, but also not at all consistent with reality.
Consider, e.g., Liberation Theology.
The idea that there aren't any very lefty Christians is...well, not entirely surprising given the logb-standing “left v religion” media narrative the US right spent so many decades fostering, but also not at all consistent with reality.
Consider, e.g., Liberation Theology.
Yes, you're right. Or the radical priests of Latin America. MLK etc. Well, there doesn't seem much of that in the US these days. Jim Jones may have had an effect - he was a model left christian most of his career apparently.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Us liberal Christians outnumber the others, we're more concerned about the teachings of Christ (cite The Beatitudes) over accumulating power or fighting culture wars, we consider it distasteful to push our beliefs onto others, and we're not organized politically and never will be.
Us liberal Christians outnumber the others, we're more concerned about the teachings of Christ (cite The Beatitudes) over accumulating power or fighting culture wars, we consider it distasteful to push our beliefs onto others, and we're not organized politically and never will be.
Hi there! (Ah sorry, I don't know what I'm talking about either.) Well, nice to meet/hear from you.
[Anecdata] Actually..I'm in rather atheist Australia, hardly met any christians here my whole life. But the last 10 years have made a lot of friends online - who are almost all christians - mostly catholic, but not all - in Latin America, the Philippines, Africa. At least, they live in very christian worlds, and are I suppose closer to what you describe than the right-wing uh....than the christianity mostly seen in the mainstream media. They're just lovely people. :-)
[Anecdata] Actually..I'm in rather atheist Australia, hardly met any christians here my whole life. But the last 10 years have made a lot of friends online - who are almost all christians - mostly catholic, but not all - in Latin America, the Philippines, Africa. At least, they live in very christian worlds, and are I suppose closer to what you describe than the right-wing uh....than the christianity mostly seen in the mainstream media. They're just lovely people. :-)
> Or the radical priests of Latin America.
That (largely) was Liberation Theology.
> Well, there doesn't seem much of that in the US these days.
There's plenty; see, e.g., Cornel West.
It's perhaps less visible than right-wing Christianity because left Christianity tends not to be theocratic in its political activism, which can make it easier to overlook the Christian part and see only the left part.
That (largely) was Liberation Theology.
> Well, there doesn't seem much of that in the US these days.
There's plenty; see, e.g., Cornel West.
It's perhaps less visible than right-wing Christianity because left Christianity tends not to be theocratic in its political activism, which can make it easier to overlook the Christian part and see only the left part.
The vast majority of Democrats are Christians, roughly 3/4ths as of 2014. http://www.pewforum.org/2015/11/03/u-s-public-becoming-less-...
To be fair, the vast majority of Democrats aren't leftists, so that doesn't actually say much about the compatibility of Christianity and leftism.
Maybe in the realm of pedantry but: Getting rid of corporations is more generally a socialist idea. Anarchists advocate getting rid of unjust hierarchy in general.
Although this is somewhat meaningless in this context since large scale worker cooperatives like the Mondragon Corporation are not (usually) considered to be "bad" organizations by socialists including anarchists.
By the way, if you are confused how anarchism could be a type of socialism check out this explanation: https://medium.com/anarchist-faq/a-1-4-83ba7fe75e15
Although this is somewhat meaningless in this context since large scale worker cooperatives like the Mondragon Corporation are not (usually) considered to be "bad" organizations by socialists including anarchists.
By the way, if you are confused how anarchism could be a type of socialism check out this explanation: https://medium.com/anarchist-faq/a-1-4-83ba7fe75e15
Lest anyone think that last paragraph is hyperbole, note that the current head of the Department of Energy had previously stated that he wanted to abolish it. This was, of course, before he found out what it did (!), which occurred after he took the job (!!).
(In case anyone doesn't realize how ridiculous this is, the DoE is responsible for, among other things, the production and maintenance of the US's nuclear arsenal.)
(In case anyone doesn't realize how ridiculous this is, the DoE is responsible for, among other things, the production and maintenance of the US's nuclear arsenal.)
The Department of Energy was only created in 1977. Eliminating the department isn't the same thing as discarding its functions en masse.
The more interesting discussion would be about the particular motivations for the creation and proposed dissolution of the department, rather than a cursory dismissal of the idea.
The more interesting discussion would be about the particular motivations for the creation and proposed dissolution of the department, rather than a cursory dismissal of the idea.
There's only two possibilities: either a given function is discarded, or it's reassigned.
Which did Rick Perry want to do? Well, given that he didn't know what those functions were, I don't see how he possibly could have had any actual plan for reassigning them.
Wanting to abolish the DoE could be sensible if done with thought. But wanting to abolish it while also not having a clue about what it does is just crazypants.
“In fact, after being briefed on so many of the vital functions of the Department of Energy, I regret recommending its elimination.” - Actual quote by the current head of the DoE.
Which did Rick Perry want to do? Well, given that he didn't know what those functions were, I don't see how he possibly could have had any actual plan for reassigning them.
Wanting to abolish the DoE could be sensible if done with thought. But wanting to abolish it while also not having a clue about what it does is just crazypants.
“In fact, after being briefed on so many of the vital functions of the Department of Energy, I regret recommending its elimination.” - Actual quote by the current head of the DoE.
I should have been more clear that I was responding to the statement that the idea itself was "ridiculous" and not to Rick Perry's inability to speak coherently about the idea.
The statement was that “this” was ridiculous, where “this” was Perry wanting to abolish a really important agency without having a clue about what it actually does.
Rick Perry claimed to want to abolish 3 departments, but couldn't remember which 3.
And the Secretary of Education has spent her entire career advocating for spending government money on privately run charter schools. And there's no small number of people on the right who believe that the Department of Education should be disbanded entirely, since they don't believe in any federal involvement in public schooling at all; they barely want state involvement (see: charter schools).
I think you are more right than wrong, although it's obviously an intentional simplification.
There are two subtleties that I think are interesting to point out.
One is that the left tends to argue more for things that increase market competition, such as busting up monopolies. I see the right arguing more frequently that anti-competitive practices are justified because limiting them impinges on the freedom of the monopolies.
The other is that portions of the libertarian right are less against governments than they are against the ability of a democracy to limit the power of the wealthy. This is why some classic libertarians like Hayek and Friedman supported right-wing dictatorships in non-US countries. Now obviously, they would say they believe this for a reason (market efficiencies, etc), but I think this is a pretty clear conflict of interest that can lead to motivated reasoning.
There are two subtleties that I think are interesting to point out.
One is that the left tends to argue more for things that increase market competition, such as busting up monopolies. I see the right arguing more frequently that anti-competitive practices are justified because limiting them impinges on the freedom of the monopolies.
The other is that portions of the libertarian right are less against governments than they are against the ability of a democracy to limit the power of the wealthy. This is why some classic libertarians like Hayek and Friedman supported right-wing dictatorships in non-US countries. Now obviously, they would say they believe this for a reason (market efficiencies, etc), but I think this is a pretty clear conflict of interest that can lead to motivated reasoning.
> The left thinks bad corporations are responsible for the ills of society, while the right thinks bad government is responsible.
Complete hogwash. Neither side thinks this.
The left certainly doesn't think that "bad corporations" are responsible for the "ills of society". "Bad corporations" are simply one of the "ills of society".
The right doesn't actually oppose "bad government" at all. They are perfectly fine with foisting bad government on everybody else as long as it comes from their "team".
Complete hogwash. Neither side thinks this.
The left certainly doesn't think that "bad corporations" are responsible for the "ills of society". "Bad corporations" are simply one of the "ills of society".
The right doesn't actually oppose "bad government" at all. They are perfectly fine with foisting bad government on everybody else as long as it comes from their "team".
I bet I can guess which side you identify with in one try.
I bet I can guess the same of you. So what? Imputing some set of values to someone doesn't make them wrong, and a failure to represent oneself as some sort of enlightened centrist, above the influence of bias, isn't in any way a mark against content.
It might make the comment the wrong sort of comment for HN.
There is no real difference between the left and right at the high levels of government. We live under crony capitalism, the worst mixture of bad government being run by bad corporations.
This is such simplistic and reductive thinking and I'm tired of seeing it. We're all circling a Fallacy of the Golden Mean drain and if I never saw another "both sides" non-argument again in my life it'd be too soon. At a minimum, it obscures the fact that in the US today we have basically one 'side'; by referring to our oligarchy's two mouthpieces as separate sides we're implicitly giving them a free pass. It probably also plays into the 'two and only two sides to every story/event' narrative that gives implicit platforms to anti-vaxers, holocaust deniers, and all sorts of unpleasantness.
As an edit, that came off as ranty because obviously I'm miffed but I stand by it for the most part.
As an edit, that came off as ranty because obviously I'm miffed but I stand by it for the most part.
The common HN user over 1000 points is happy to downvote you, but your dead on that both major US parties are bought and operated by the major companies, with social policies being the main differentiator.
Its really sad that there is no choice in American politics today outside a handful of socialist politicians at the local level.
Edit: Keep the downvotes coming! The lack of responses is telling :P
Its really sad that there is no choice in American politics today outside a handful of socialist politicians at the local level.
Edit: Keep the downvotes coming! The lack of responses is telling :P
The difference is, nobody on the right is advocating to make corporations even bigger, while left in virtually any country works to make government bigger than it is.
Yes they are. The right works to remove regulations and checks on corporations.
That's because they believe that those regulations aren't allowing smaller corporations to be able to compete
That's debatable. But also not pertinent, since the original claim was that they weren't doing it at all, without qualification.
With small companies being the primary rationale behind these measures.
The right frequently advocates for privatizing various government services, which would make corporations bigger.
1) This wasn't really forgotten by the public. There was a law passed by Congress meant to address this, which if anyone has worked in American corporate governance is well aware of. The article mentions the FCPA.
2) The much more interesting question about Watergate is what were the Plumbers looking for? Why did they conduct their break ins? This was not understood at the time.
We now know about Nixon's successful attempt to torpedo the Vietnam peace talks in '68. Something Mark Felt didn't even know. We also now know that LBJ knew about it as well right before the elections in '68. LBJ didn't make it public, but instead kept a file on it that later came to be held in his presidential library. Nixon and the plumbers were likely looking for this file. They never found it and it wasn't until a researcher in the mid-90's discovered it in LBJ's presidential library. This information, had it been made public, would have destroyed Nixon.