What got me stimulated to address the subject was a recent message from Congresswoman Chellie Pingree, dated 29 December 2009, in which she pleads for contributions from supporters. In the message, Pingree expresses her support for taking away "the power of the corporate special interests in our political system."
That got me to thinking - just what is a "special interest?" It's like "bipartisanship," clearly, an overused and always popular term to reflect badly on your opposition.
"Special interest," on the lips of a politician, virtually always means "my opposition's base."
(This is an excerpt from the post; to read the item, click on the "read more" link just below.)
A pet peeve of mine, from a list of great length, is the way politicians completely, conveniently, and unabashedly abuse plain English to serve their purposes. For example, the use of the word "bipartisan."
Recently, Gov. Baldacci called for bipartisanship in dealing with the budget crisis the state faces. I think what he really wants is for the opposition to come to his side so he has cover for whatever he decides to do, which he clearly can implement without a single vote from the minority. But if he gets a few minority votes, all publicity and press coverage from here to eternity will describe the actions taken, no matter how onerous, as bipartisan, and the minority will be deprived of any attempt to saddle the majority with sole responsibility.
Have you ever heard someone in the majority call for bipartisanship and then immediately state that they intend to join the minority opposition to make their point? Of course you haven't. Bipartisanship is always used to demand the other guys side with the speaker, and partisanship is always used to claim the other guys wouldn't.
Partisanship is never ever used to describe the speakers own behavior. It's like kids and sharing. Sharing is always something the other kid should do.
Recently I remembered two words a friend introduced me to many years ago. They are duplicitous and sanctimonious, or if you prefer, duplicity and sanctimony. I love them both, and I enjoy pulling them out from time to time, and this seems like one of those times. Most often, politicians are the stimulus, as it's likely the words were coined in their honor.
The Tom Allen post of the other day is a perfect case study of the concepts of sanctimony and duplicity. During his 12 years in congress, Allen put his sanctimony on display regularly as he spoke for working families and economic and social justice, and railed against corporations, special interests, lobbyists, and big money corrupting our democratic system.
Now that Tom's lost his place in the ruling aristocracy, guess what. He's found a nice cushy big bucks job representing publishing corporations, lobbying to advocate for their special interests, and no doubt leveraging big money to make his points. Can you say duplicity, boys and girls? Funny, honey, how money can change things under the right conditions, isn't it?
Tom's got great examples to model himself after. Fellow Bowdoin alums Bill Cohen and George Mitchell are way up there on the big money scale, so Tommy has his work cut out for him. Records are made to be broken, so they say. Don't you just love altruism and sacrifice in the name of "public service?"
Then there's a word this reporter coined: compous, or if you prefer, composity. It's a combination of compost (putrid, rotting organic matter, if you get my drift), and pompous (describing self-absorbed bloviation). Some readers may suggest that the word describes this reporter. Fair enough; make your case, and I'll slap you down like the worthless, inarticulate twit you are.
I came across a perfect example of composity today, compliments of Senator Ben Nelson, the perpetrator of perhaps the most shameless act of vote selling ever seen in the U. S. Senate. And he sold his vote at the expense of the other 49 states; way to go, Ben. You desecrate that name with your behavior; I could tell you to look ashamed, but you wouldn't understand the concept of shame.
To back up my assertion, look at this recent report on the "Honorable" Senator Nelson from the Wall Street Journal. (I've edited the item down.)
Mistakes were made, says Sen. Ben Nelson. Here's how he can unmake them.
By JAMES TARANTO
"Sen. Ben Nelson said Tuesday it was a mistake for the Obama Administration to take on massive health care reforms in 2009, and suggested efforts would have been better spent addressing the economy," reports the Fremont Tribune, a local paper from Nelson's home state of Nebraska.
Stupid Obama administration rookie mistakes! "I would have preferred not to be dealing with health care in the midst of everything else, and I think working on the economy would have been a wiser move," Nelson tells the Tribune, in an interview he requested. And you know that if there was anything Nelson could have done to prevent this mistake, he would have done it, because he's the kind of guy who puts partisanship aside to do the right thing.
Oh, wait:
Nelson, who provided the crucial 60th vote to advance the bill toward Senate passage on Dec. 19, has been active ever since trying to explain his actions to Nebraskans.So his explanation for why he backed this monstrosity is that Obama made a mistake. Nebraskans must be very proud that their senior senator is such a stand-up guy.
One man could solve all of these problems, and that man is Ben Nelson. Before ObamaCare becomes law, the House and Senate versions need to be reconciled, so that both chambers approve the same legislation. Nelson could simply announce, consistent with his belief that ObamaCare is a mistake, that under no circumstances will he vote for cloture on the final bill.
That would deny backers the 60 votes they need to bring the legislation to a vote.
That way poor Bart Stupak won't be blamed, and Nelson will get the credit for stopping a measure that his constituents rightly loathe. Does Nelson have the courage to do it? We suppose he answered that question with his vote on Dec. 19. But perhaps his fear of Nebraska voters will be sufficient to overcome his fear of Harry Reid.
Geez....reading back over this, I think another new word is called for - something like comp-imony, or comp-icity. I'll have my people get to work on it right away, and I'll get back to you.
So how did I get here? Oh yeah...language abuse by politicians. I sure can wander, can't I? But that's one of the things you love about me, right? It proves I'm 'human.' What got me stimulated to address the subject was a recent message from Congresswoman Chellie Pingree, dated 29 December 2009, in which she pleads for contributions from supporters. In the message, Pingree expresses her support for taking away "the power of the corporate special interests in our political system."
That got me to thinking - just what is a "special interest?" It's like "bipartisanship," clearly, an overused and always popular term to reflect badly on your opposition.
"Special interest," on the lips of a politician, virtually always means "my opposition's base."
For example, if you're a liberal left winger, "special interests" would encompass 2nd Amendment (gun rights) groups; pro-lifers; traditional marriage supporters; personal property rights advocates; right to work zealots; and various constitutionalist/limited government believers. If you're a conservative right winger, "special interests" would encompass gun control groups; abortion rights organizations; gay rights/marriage supporters; common good promoters and environmentalists; unions; and "living constitution" social & economic justice believers.
In a manner of speaking, there are only two types of constituents in our political landscape; those who are members of special interest groups, and those who aren't. And the latter, if you think about it, are a special interest group all to themselves.
Before we get on to my maine point, note if you will the artful use by Chellie of the modifier "corporate" with the term special interest. Corporations are always a popular target for public disdain, ready to be leveraged by the demagogues who want to help us. Even if they employ a huge portion of the population; even if they create the wealth off which government feeds; and even if they create the investment opportunities for hedge funds and similar financial instruments that fund the political aspirations of congressional candidates like Chellie.
But I digress. The point I wish to make is that "special interests" and their power (a code word for votes and big money) have come into being for a very simple and perfectly logical reason. In simple terms, it is the free market doing what the free market does best: apply capital where it is put to its most productive use, and arrange transactions that maximize the satisfaction of both parties.
OK, I'm not an economics or political science prof, so let's boil that down to its essence. Special interests exist to buy influence, and influence is for sale. Put another way, if these special interests, corporate or otherwise, had no success in their pursuits after years and years of trying, they would whither away and disappear from the political and geographic landscape.
But they have great success, and so they prosper and multiply and consume the attention of the system. Why?; because it is in the self (is that special?) interest of elected and unelected officials to pander to them. That's why. The only question is which special interests you choose to favor.
And thus I come to this conclusion: influence peddling is the flip side of the special interest coin. If you are offended by the concept of undue power being given to special interests, end the practice of self-motivated influence and power peddling.
It is time we turn the tables, and change the discussion from one that is special interest centric, to one that is influence peddler centric. The latter have spawned a non-profit industrial complex that far exceeds the danger of anything Eisenhower feared about the military industrial complex decades ago. They are a shadow government, buying influence from those who sell it willingly, and in the process, sounding the death knell to the creation of the founders.
Don't believe me? You got some time for me to buy you a few drinks and make my case more clearly? And while I'm at it, do you have any favorite causes you'd like me to support?
Hey, isn't this what friends are for? And I've got more friends, if you're interested.
No comments:
Post a Comment