Well done Alexis. Of course I participated in those same annual ethics courses, and it was drilled into us that "the mere appearance of a conflict of interest is a conflict of interest." We understood why. You'll remember we also used to write cables back to headquarters analyzing "state capture" - the takeover of institutions by non-state actors - narcotraffickers, economic elites, whoever. Now we're experiencing our own "state capture" by crypto hustler and real estate deal maker. And as you point out, perhaps most amazingly, a sitting President of the United States actually selling access to himself for outrageous sums of money. Anybody want to have dinner with me this week? It'll cost you 10 bucks!
I would love to spark a discussion about whether the Trump administration marks a sea change in this country's approach to corruption--or whether it's more of the same. My sense is that it really is different, in part because it's so brazen, as though it's not prohibited anymore but expected. Maybe I'm wrong. There are those who believe it is more symptom of systemic corruption than cause. Whatever the case (it's probably both), it's going in the wrong direction.
But right now it appears we must be content to observe a lot of sick roosters coming home to roost. It seems that the core of the Democrat corruption is no longer simply a question about Biden, or his son, or his other family members.
Instead, I am hearing a lot about a fellow named "Otto Pen". 😉
Kidding aside, if those who hijacked the Biden presidency are identified and charged it could be the biggest scandal in my lifetime. Jake Tapper, always a Biden apologist and committed cover-"upperer" himself, is out peddling a new book and is seriously trying to argue that "Otto Pen" was none other than Hunter Biden, which of course is laughable in the extreme.
Tapper's nonsense tells me that he is covering for others like Klain, Obama and perhaps even Hillary. Keep up with the Trump stuff if you want -- it IS important -- but the really important stuff will involve "Mr. Otto Pen". I would put money on it if I had any. 😆
Forgive me but, as a lifelong Democrat who left the party and became an independent during what I consider to have been an absolutely disastrously corrupt Biden admin -- and after having been aghast at the massive corruption level in the US government since perhaps Bush #1 -- I found your observations surprisingly partisan in their selectivity. (To be clear, none of my specific comments should be construed as support for Trump.)
Having witnessed the distressingly deep low that was the Biden admin, I take note of the wording in your latest that suggests that Trump represents something new.
"Back when"
"We understood"
"That was then"
"Back when[,] we understood"
"That was then"
"Corruption [...] *was* [emphasis added] seen as [...]"
"That was then"
[Paraphrased] "What happens when we’re dealing with bad men?"
"It was understood"
"Those of us who have lived and worked in places where public institutions do not function, or function poorly, or function mostly (if not exclusively) on behalf of private interests, know what this looks like in real life."
Have you not been observing our own country as a concerned citizen before January 20, 2025?
You do give lip service to the problem:
"I know. I know. The United States has never been perfect."
"To some observers, the system itself is corrupt"
but then you end with simply saying: "I’m not so sure".
Really?
You go on to posit, in the context of the bureaucratic functionary level, a high ethical standard:
"Even the appearance of a conflict of interest could be problematic, requiring quick action to remove it."
How is this relevant when considering eg post Bush #1 (non-Trump) leadership where momentously corrupt situations of conflict of interest (Halliburton and the Military-Industrial Complex level) presented us, for example, with examples of George Bush, Madeline Albright, George Tenet, Colin Powell level people where corruption and lies literally led to the deaths of over a million innocents by American hands -- acts which by any reasonable definition actually constituted historic war crimes.
How could these sorts of things have happened without the presence of massive systemic corruption, including blatant deception about risks related to weapons of mass destruction?
"As for gifts from private individuals or foreign governments, these could not exceed a certain laughably low dollar limit, depending. Everybody understood why."
"Not anymore."
How does this square with eg members of Congress having been allowed to engage in insider trading for several decades?
"Now our president can do and accept whatever he wants, without limits"
Is this even accurate? My understanding is that this Boeing plane was *not* a personal gift.
"Pursue a fantastic cryptocurrency scheme that enriches his family"
Is this accurate? My understanding is that Trump's assets are, as they should be, in a blind trust. Is this not the case?
Are you referring to business interests pursued by his adult children? Is there eidence of impropriety?
The Trump family business existed for generations, well before any person named Trump entered politics.
To the contrary, my understanding is that Trump's net worth decreased significantly during his time in office. Is that not accurate?
"Accept a fabulous $300+ million jumbo jet from a foreign country"
Again, my understanding is that this was for a gift to the United States, not to Trump personally.
Do you mean to suggest that the Statue of Liberty should be dismantled and removed because its continuing existence ties our country unduly to France?
"All but openly pursue private business deals in the first group of countries he visits officially as president"
His own private business deals? Which were those?
"Sell time-share face time with himself and his family and cronies"
Since when has the US system *not* been dominated by massive, continual fundraising? I am old enough to remember the time when the Clintons raised funds via White House sleepovers -- surely our Citizens United-infected system is not just a new Trump thing?
"What have we come to?"
Where have we *come from*?
"This is not just brazen corruption, this is corruption raised to neutron bomb power"
See my above examples, which involved *actual* -- and plentiful -- corruption that reached "bomb power" level that killed scores of people.
"Nations fail when their economic and political institutions fall into the hands of elites with unchecked power who pursue their own interests at the expense of the nation"
Hasn't that already happened? This very phenomenon has arguably destroyed my political home, the Democrat party, now unrecognizable and which now limps along as a husk of its former self. As a former Democrat, I believe many who left did so because they were tired of *Democrat* corruption. I certainly did. Even TRUMP was a Democrat for most of his life!
"The United States has never before been in such danger of becoming a failing nation, its fate in the hands of a bad man, a known grifter and twice-impeached criminal who tried openly to steal an election"
Parroting these sorts of MSNBC/CNN level insults is beneath your enterprise and skill level. I've actually argued the "stolen election / Jan 6" points *heatedly* with others -- even other former Democrats -- who argue very plausibly (but thus far not convincingly) that a great many disturbing things happened in 2020, starting with mail-in ballots, and ending with vulnerable electronic voting machines. The Trump admin thinks they will demonstrate once and for all that this happened? I used to think this ludicrous but I've heard enough disturbing things about election criminality to want to at least listen.
"Whatever the flaws in our constitutional system, it has remained resilient—until now."
Really? What about the Civil War, Lincoln's impasse with very fallible courts, and the suspension of habeas corpus? The "constitutional system" failed in grand manner then and the country was saved, basically, via martial law.
"The checks and balances enabled it to defend itself against the abuses and corruption of men, including bad men. It has allowed it to stand its ground and push back."
See above example.
To sum up, by characterizing our problems as being different "in kind" simply because of Trump, who has been in office for a *few months*,I really do think you ignore what's gone on for a long time.
Why? Is this because you were too close to it, as a member of government? There seems to be a palpable reluctance on your part to tackle any of the pre-Trump copious examples of corruption that would actually help explain what's going on now. Are you afraid of offending your peers by tackling earlier admins?
I knew I could count on you for a strongly worded rebuttal, which I appreciate. You and I must share a discomfort with the (mostly unintended) implications of our respective positions. My criticism of the current orgy of unchecked corruption under Trump (I bet we're only seeing the tip of the iceberg) suggests I condone everything that came before and believe our system was pristine and perfect and beautiful and good before Mr. Trump. (I don't and it wasn't). Your implicit argument that the current administration is nothing new but only more of the same, more consequence than cause, so nobody should be surprised or pretend they never knew there was corruption happening in the gambling hall. Again, I would welcome a guest post from you arguing (as you apparently do) that Biden and his immediate predecessors were at least as bad, corruption-wise, as Trump, so what are all you deranged critics of Trump talking about? (Obama too?). I'd like to hear you lay out the case. You sound like you could make it compelling.
Besides that, I stand by my shaky position. The brazenness of the corruption is new, as is the apparent unwillingness to do anything about it, not to mention the administration's efforts to attack the institutions in place to prevent it and stop it. And mark my words (they're not just mine), we're just getting started. Yes, Hunter Biden traded on daddy's name and it's sickening. Yes, Biden and the people around him lied to the public about his mental condition. (I was among those who thought he should do what he had been elected to do, be a one-term, transition president). Yes, Dick Cheney (and Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz et al) dragged us through the mud of a war on false pretenses and profited from it. No, I don't condone that; I find it infuriating and would have opposed it in public if I could have at the time. Instead, in formal government channels, we reported extensively on the ardent opposition of our host country's government and people to it (I was in Malaysia at the time). As thanks for doing our job, we were excoriated by Newt Gingrich and other such luminaries in public for not being patriotic. I've written tangentially about that.
It's ironic that I was going to write about the double-standards that apply to political appointees and career officials as to ethics. Political appointees, who have more power, can get away with a lot more, generally speaking (not always). It's no coincidence that the current administration wants at least 50,000 of them in our government in place of the current 4-5 thousand. Get ready for the accompanying explosion of corruption up, across and down.
Now I will quote myself to spice up my own conversation. Two of my previous posts that have attracted relatively few readers (so far) are relevant. One is my belated book review of Charles Peters' "How Washington Really Works" -- the 1993 edition (which may be the last one). Like you, Peters is a disillusioned Democrat who rails against a city (and a party) that let him down, but he never gave up. His solution, which I wholeheartedly support, is to rid politics of the influence of money. Because with it, especially the dark kind, the government serves private interests, not the public. Instead of heeding that council, we have gone hard in the exact opposite direction. Citizens United led us to where we are now--a government by, for, and of the most powerful private interests in the country (some of whom we don't even know). Middle finger to the public.
The second post is a somewhat personal reflection "Against Gerontocracy". I find it terribly ironic that President Eisenhower was genuinely reluctant to run for a second term due to his age (and a previous heart attack) but decided to do so because (to paraphrase Jean Edward Smith) he understood the Republican Party would win big with him and possibly lose it all without him. He finished his second term at age 70, by which time it really was time to pass the torch to a new generation.
I think it's time again now, in more ways than one. Will we get that chance?
Quote: "His solution, which I wholeheartedly support, is to rid politics of the influence of money"
Absolutely. But the chance that congress will enact rules that overturn the perniciousness of Citizens United is slim, extremely slim. I'd rate my chances to win the EuroMillions higher than that.
Quote: "The brazenness of the corruption is new, as is the apparent unwillingness to do anything about it, "
Earlier today I saw a note about Mr Johnson saying that he couldn't comment on the 'dinner' (THAT dinner) as he didn't know anything about it. I/we can now do two things, one is decide that Mr Johnson is lying and that he knows full well what's been going down. (Remind me, please, which commandment is 'Thou shall not lie'?) Or I/we can decide that he isn't lying and that he as a full-time professional politician is not aware of the biggest story over the last couple of days.
Basically, we have the choice of thinking of him as a crook or an idiot.
Quote: "The brazenness of the corruption is new, as is the apparent unwillingness to do anything about it, "
(I am splitting my responses, so that it's easier for others to join in the conversation). In this bit, I'd like to hone in on the enabling which takes place. There hasn't been the equivalent of The Enablement Act as there was in 1933 in Germany, but there have been little bits of enablement all over the place. Earlier today, I read this piece, which mentions that the budget bill will also include some measures which make it much much harder to rein in the abuses, this government is doing and the abuses the government is planning to do.
The enabling is spread around and thus it allows people who are supporting such efforts to delude themselves, that they are not enabling an authoritarian regime. They're just 'tidying up a legislative issue', 'tightening eligibility', 'streamlining procedural rules' ... and so on.
It reminded me of Mhairi Black, when she said that fascism doesn't arrive in leather jackboots. I've included the video, it's about 5 minutes long, the 'jackboots' are at about 3:00.
Quote: "To sum up, by characterizing our problems as being different "in kind" simply because of Trump, who has been in office for a *few months*,I really do think you ignore what's gone on for a long time. Why? Is this because you were too close to it, as a member of government? There seems to be a palpable reluctance on your part to tackle any of the pre-Trump copious examples of corruption that would actually help explain what's going on now. Are you afraid of offending your peers by tackling earlier admins?"
I am conscious that you wrote the above comment a few days ago, i.e. prior to the 'dinner', the 'big, bad budget bill', the legal spat about international students at Harvard, the ostentatious display of stupidity of cabinet members in congress hearings and that awful West Point speech. If you were writing the same as above today, then I'd accuse you of wanting to deflect attention from what's going on now by whataboutery about Hunter Biden, Billy Carter, the Clinton/Rodham brothers and a few others.
By all means, let's discuss events from the last admin, last decade or last century, but you then also need to acknowledge that by doing that we are reducing the time available to discuss what we can do NOW to actually affect the situation. Deflecting attention in this, current situation is enabling.
Such a delicate tightrope dance. Believe me, I have no sympathy for the Biden cover-up or for those arguing we should cover it up. We need to hold all to the same account. Yet I continue to stand behind the argument that the current administration is corrupt at its core and dedicated to the upending and overturning of democratic government, making this symptom of the underlying malady worse than what caused it. Thanks for weighing in.
I think we ( ie you) are heading at best towards an authoritarian government. And we (ie you) are already a good chunk of the way there.
I listened to Mhairi Black before I posted the clip, she's absolutely spot on.
Btw, Mhairi Black was elected MP in 2015. That was the election when all the non-SNP MPs could fit into a taxi and still have room for our pandas. :-) When she was elected she was the youngest MP of the modern era. I think she was put up as a candidate to fill a slot, not necessarily expecting her to win, given that she was up against Douglas Alexander, who was a high-ranking Labour Party member. The Labour Party got wiped out in that election (2015). Which in itself was a huge change from a few years previously when they weighed the Labour vote and joked that anyone with a red rosette was sure to be getting elected, even if it were a lame donkey.
When I first moved to Glasgow, 72 out of 76 (that's me remembering, please don't shoot me if the details are a bit wonky) of the town councillors were Labour. Now, this has changed, not only due to the changes in politics here in Scotland but also due to the change in voting system. We moved away from FPTP (First past the post) and moved to PR_style systems. I like our voting system, the one which we are using for our Holyrood Parliament.
It is my firm opinion that a change towards a similar voting system in the US would solve a lot of the political problems the country has. But, I suspect the likelihood is in the same region of me winning the EuroMillions. Even in those weeks when I actually buy a ticket.
Yes indeed. You are a careful observer of the politics of several places, including those of my big hulking country. Harvard political scientist Danielle Allen would probably agree with your view that some of our political problems could be easily solved (or at least better managed) by certain relatively simple structural changes. Not sure if FPTP or balanced approaches involving first or second selections etc. are among them. One of them is simple yet virtually unthinkable. The number of representatives in the house was capped in 1929 at 435, even though the US population has nearly tripled since that time. Increasing the number so that populous states (like my home state of California) get proportionate representation would do wonders. Even, according to Allen, get rid of the need for gerrymandering. On that note, seeing what happened to Liz Truss and wishing we had the same tools here, made me envious of a parliamentary system. At a minimum, a crazed leader could be subjected to a no-confidence vote before he launches his country off a cliff. Even so, it's not clear that activists MAGA constituents would allow their representatives to do this even now. It appears we really are dealing with an organized cult. Enjoyed listening to your distinguished MP. Seems like a no-nonsense type of person who is willing to confront opponents with solid arguments well articulated.
Well done Alexis. Of course I participated in those same annual ethics courses, and it was drilled into us that "the mere appearance of a conflict of interest is a conflict of interest." We understood why. You'll remember we also used to write cables back to headquarters analyzing "state capture" - the takeover of institutions by non-state actors - narcotraffickers, economic elites, whoever. Now we're experiencing our own "state capture" by crypto hustler and real estate deal maker. And as you point out, perhaps most amazingly, a sitting President of the United States actually selling access to himself for outrageous sums of money. Anybody want to have dinner with me this week? It'll cost you 10 bucks!
I would love to spark a discussion about whether the Trump administration marks a sea change in this country's approach to corruption--or whether it's more of the same. My sense is that it really is different, in part because it's so brazen, as though it's not prohibited anymore but expected. Maybe I'm wrong. There are those who believe it is more symptom of systemic corruption than cause. Whatever the case (it's probably both), it's going in the wrong direction.
Good question. Who knows.
But right now it appears we must be content to observe a lot of sick roosters coming home to roost. It seems that the core of the Democrat corruption is no longer simply a question about Biden, or his son, or his other family members.
Instead, I am hearing a lot about a fellow named "Otto Pen". 😉
Kidding aside, if those who hijacked the Biden presidency are identified and charged it could be the biggest scandal in my lifetime. Jake Tapper, always a Biden apologist and committed cover-"upperer" himself, is out peddling a new book and is seriously trying to argue that "Otto Pen" was none other than Hunter Biden, which of course is laughable in the extreme.
Tapper's nonsense tells me that he is covering for others like Klain, Obama and perhaps even Hillary. Keep up with the Trump stuff if you want -- it IS important -- but the really important stuff will involve "Mr. Otto Pen". I would put money on it if I had any. 😆
Forgive me but, as a lifelong Democrat who left the party and became an independent during what I consider to have been an absolutely disastrously corrupt Biden admin -- and after having been aghast at the massive corruption level in the US government since perhaps Bush #1 -- I found your observations surprisingly partisan in their selectivity. (To be clear, none of my specific comments should be construed as support for Trump.)
Having witnessed the distressingly deep low that was the Biden admin, I take note of the wording in your latest that suggests that Trump represents something new.
"Back when"
"We understood"
"That was then"
"Back when[,] we understood"
"That was then"
"Corruption [...] *was* [emphasis added] seen as [...]"
"That was then"
[Paraphrased] "What happens when we’re dealing with bad men?"
"It was understood"
"Those of us who have lived and worked in places where public institutions do not function, or function poorly, or function mostly (if not exclusively) on behalf of private interests, know what this looks like in real life."
Have you not been observing our own country as a concerned citizen before January 20, 2025?
You do give lip service to the problem:
"I know. I know. The United States has never been perfect."
"To some observers, the system itself is corrupt"
but then you end with simply saying: "I’m not so sure".
Really?
You go on to posit, in the context of the bureaucratic functionary level, a high ethical standard:
"Even the appearance of a conflict of interest could be problematic, requiring quick action to remove it."
How is this relevant when considering eg post Bush #1 (non-Trump) leadership where momentously corrupt situations of conflict of interest (Halliburton and the Military-Industrial Complex level) presented us, for example, with examples of George Bush, Madeline Albright, George Tenet, Colin Powell level people where corruption and lies literally led to the deaths of over a million innocents by American hands -- acts which by any reasonable definition actually constituted historic war crimes.
How could these sorts of things have happened without the presence of massive systemic corruption, including blatant deception about risks related to weapons of mass destruction?
"As for gifts from private individuals or foreign governments, these could not exceed a certain laughably low dollar limit, depending. Everybody understood why."
"Not anymore."
How does this square with eg members of Congress having been allowed to engage in insider trading for several decades?
"Now our president can do and accept whatever he wants, without limits"
Is this even accurate? My understanding is that this Boeing plane was *not* a personal gift.
"Pursue a fantastic cryptocurrency scheme that enriches his family"
Is this accurate? My understanding is that Trump's assets are, as they should be, in a blind trust. Is this not the case?
Are you referring to business interests pursued by his adult children? Is there eidence of impropriety?
The Trump family business existed for generations, well before any person named Trump entered politics.
To the contrary, my understanding is that Trump's net worth decreased significantly during his time in office. Is that not accurate?
"Accept a fabulous $300+ million jumbo jet from a foreign country"
Again, my understanding is that this was for a gift to the United States, not to Trump personally.
Do you mean to suggest that the Statue of Liberty should be dismantled and removed because its continuing existence ties our country unduly to France?
"All but openly pursue private business deals in the first group of countries he visits officially as president"
His own private business deals? Which were those?
"Sell time-share face time with himself and his family and cronies"
Since when has the US system *not* been dominated by massive, continual fundraising? I am old enough to remember the time when the Clintons raised funds via White House sleepovers -- surely our Citizens United-infected system is not just a new Trump thing?
"What have we come to?"
Where have we *come from*?
"This is not just brazen corruption, this is corruption raised to neutron bomb power"
See my above examples, which involved *actual* -- and plentiful -- corruption that reached "bomb power" level that killed scores of people.
"Nations fail when their economic and political institutions fall into the hands of elites with unchecked power who pursue their own interests at the expense of the nation"
Hasn't that already happened? This very phenomenon has arguably destroyed my political home, the Democrat party, now unrecognizable and which now limps along as a husk of its former self. As a former Democrat, I believe many who left did so because they were tired of *Democrat* corruption. I certainly did. Even TRUMP was a Democrat for most of his life!
"The United States has never before been in such danger of becoming a failing nation, its fate in the hands of a bad man, a known grifter and twice-impeached criminal who tried openly to steal an election"
Parroting these sorts of MSNBC/CNN level insults is beneath your enterprise and skill level. I've actually argued the "stolen election / Jan 6" points *heatedly* with others -- even other former Democrats -- who argue very plausibly (but thus far not convincingly) that a great many disturbing things happened in 2020, starting with mail-in ballots, and ending with vulnerable electronic voting machines. The Trump admin thinks they will demonstrate once and for all that this happened? I used to think this ludicrous but I've heard enough disturbing things about election criminality to want to at least listen.
"Whatever the flaws in our constitutional system, it has remained resilient—until now."
Really? What about the Civil War, Lincoln's impasse with very fallible courts, and the suspension of habeas corpus? The "constitutional system" failed in grand manner then and the country was saved, basically, via martial law.
"The checks and balances enabled it to defend itself against the abuses and corruption of men, including bad men. It has allowed it to stand its ground and push back."
See above example.
To sum up, by characterizing our problems as being different "in kind" simply because of Trump, who has been in office for a *few months*,I really do think you ignore what's gone on for a long time.
Why? Is this because you were too close to it, as a member of government? There seems to be a palpable reluctance on your part to tackle any of the pre-Trump copious examples of corruption that would actually help explain what's going on now. Are you afraid of offending your peers by tackling earlier admins?
Thanks again for simulating my neurons.
I knew I could count on you for a strongly worded rebuttal, which I appreciate. You and I must share a discomfort with the (mostly unintended) implications of our respective positions. My criticism of the current orgy of unchecked corruption under Trump (I bet we're only seeing the tip of the iceberg) suggests I condone everything that came before and believe our system was pristine and perfect and beautiful and good before Mr. Trump. (I don't and it wasn't). Your implicit argument that the current administration is nothing new but only more of the same, more consequence than cause, so nobody should be surprised or pretend they never knew there was corruption happening in the gambling hall. Again, I would welcome a guest post from you arguing (as you apparently do) that Biden and his immediate predecessors were at least as bad, corruption-wise, as Trump, so what are all you deranged critics of Trump talking about? (Obama too?). I'd like to hear you lay out the case. You sound like you could make it compelling.
Besides that, I stand by my shaky position. The brazenness of the corruption is new, as is the apparent unwillingness to do anything about it, not to mention the administration's efforts to attack the institutions in place to prevent it and stop it. And mark my words (they're not just mine), we're just getting started. Yes, Hunter Biden traded on daddy's name and it's sickening. Yes, Biden and the people around him lied to the public about his mental condition. (I was among those who thought he should do what he had been elected to do, be a one-term, transition president). Yes, Dick Cheney (and Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz et al) dragged us through the mud of a war on false pretenses and profited from it. No, I don't condone that; I find it infuriating and would have opposed it in public if I could have at the time. Instead, in formal government channels, we reported extensively on the ardent opposition of our host country's government and people to it (I was in Malaysia at the time). As thanks for doing our job, we were excoriated by Newt Gingrich and other such luminaries in public for not being patriotic. I've written tangentially about that.
It's ironic that I was going to write about the double-standards that apply to political appointees and career officials as to ethics. Political appointees, who have more power, can get away with a lot more, generally speaking (not always). It's no coincidence that the current administration wants at least 50,000 of them in our government in place of the current 4-5 thousand. Get ready for the accompanying explosion of corruption up, across and down.
Now I will quote myself to spice up my own conversation. Two of my previous posts that have attracted relatively few readers (so far) are relevant. One is my belated book review of Charles Peters' "How Washington Really Works" -- the 1993 edition (which may be the last one). Like you, Peters is a disillusioned Democrat who rails against a city (and a party) that let him down, but he never gave up. His solution, which I wholeheartedly support, is to rid politics of the influence of money. Because with it, especially the dark kind, the government serves private interests, not the public. Instead of heeding that council, we have gone hard in the exact opposite direction. Citizens United led us to where we are now--a government by, for, and of the most powerful private interests in the country (some of whom we don't even know). Middle finger to the public.
The second post is a somewhat personal reflection "Against Gerontocracy". I find it terribly ironic that President Eisenhower was genuinely reluctant to run for a second term due to his age (and a previous heart attack) but decided to do so because (to paraphrase Jean Edward Smith) he understood the Republican Party would win big with him and possibly lose it all without him. He finished his second term at age 70, by which time it really was time to pass the torch to a new generation.
I think it's time again now, in more ways than one. Will we get that chance?
Quote: "His solution, which I wholeheartedly support, is to rid politics of the influence of money"
Absolutely. But the chance that congress will enact rules that overturn the perniciousness of Citizens United is slim, extremely slim. I'd rate my chances to win the EuroMillions higher than that.
Quote: "The brazenness of the corruption is new, as is the apparent unwillingness to do anything about it, "
Earlier today I saw a note about Mr Johnson saying that he couldn't comment on the 'dinner' (THAT dinner) as he didn't know anything about it. I/we can now do two things, one is decide that Mr Johnson is lying and that he knows full well what's been going down. (Remind me, please, which commandment is 'Thou shall not lie'?) Or I/we can decide that he isn't lying and that he as a full-time professional politician is not aware of the biggest story over the last couple of days.
Basically, we have the choice of thinking of him as a crook or an idiot.
Quote: "The brazenness of the corruption is new, as is the apparent unwillingness to do anything about it, "
(I am splitting my responses, so that it's easier for others to join in the conversation). In this bit, I'd like to hone in on the enabling which takes place. There hasn't been the equivalent of The Enablement Act as there was in 1933 in Germany, but there have been little bits of enablement all over the place. Earlier today, I read this piece, which mentions that the budget bill will also include some measures which make it much much harder to rein in the abuses, this government is doing and the abuses the government is planning to do.
https://dissentinbloom.substack.com/p/the-constitution-wont-cover-poor
The enabling is spread around and thus it allows people who are supporting such efforts to delude themselves, that they are not enabling an authoritarian regime. They're just 'tidying up a legislative issue', 'tightening eligibility', 'streamlining procedural rules' ... and so on.
It reminded me of Mhairi Black, when she said that fascism doesn't arrive in leather jackboots. I've included the video, it's about 5 minutes long, the 'jackboots' are at about 3:00.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVZ3QwA5wy8
Quote: "To sum up, by characterizing our problems as being different "in kind" simply because of Trump, who has been in office for a *few months*,I really do think you ignore what's gone on for a long time. Why? Is this because you were too close to it, as a member of government? There seems to be a palpable reluctance on your part to tackle any of the pre-Trump copious examples of corruption that would actually help explain what's going on now. Are you afraid of offending your peers by tackling earlier admins?"
I am conscious that you wrote the above comment a few days ago, i.e. prior to the 'dinner', the 'big, bad budget bill', the legal spat about international students at Harvard, the ostentatious display of stupidity of cabinet members in congress hearings and that awful West Point speech. If you were writing the same as above today, then I'd accuse you of wanting to deflect attention from what's going on now by whataboutery about Hunter Biden, Billy Carter, the Clinton/Rodham brothers and a few others.
By all means, let's discuss events from the last admin, last decade or last century, but you then also need to acknowledge that by doing that we are reducing the time available to discuss what we can do NOW to actually affect the situation. Deflecting attention in this, current situation is enabling.
Such a delicate tightrope dance. Believe me, I have no sympathy for the Biden cover-up or for those arguing we should cover it up. We need to hold all to the same account. Yet I continue to stand behind the argument that the current administration is corrupt at its core and dedicated to the upending and overturning of democratic government, making this symptom of the underlying malady worse than what caused it. Thanks for weighing in.
Absolutely.
I think we ( ie you) are heading at best towards an authoritarian government. And we (ie you) are already a good chunk of the way there.
I listened to Mhairi Black before I posted the clip, she's absolutely spot on.
Btw, Mhairi Black was elected MP in 2015. That was the election when all the non-SNP MPs could fit into a taxi and still have room for our pandas. :-) When she was elected she was the youngest MP of the modern era. I think she was put up as a candidate to fill a slot, not necessarily expecting her to win, given that she was up against Douglas Alexander, who was a high-ranking Labour Party member. The Labour Party got wiped out in that election (2015). Which in itself was a huge change from a few years previously when they weighed the Labour vote and joked that anyone with a red rosette was sure to be getting elected, even if it were a lame donkey.
When I first moved to Glasgow, 72 out of 76 (that's me remembering, please don't shoot me if the details are a bit wonky) of the town councillors were Labour. Now, this has changed, not only due to the changes in politics here in Scotland but also due to the change in voting system. We moved away from FPTP (First past the post) and moved to PR_style systems. I like our voting system, the one which we are using for our Holyrood Parliament.
It is my firm opinion that a change towards a similar voting system in the US would solve a lot of the political problems the country has. But, I suspect the likelihood is in the same region of me winning the EuroMillions. Even in those weeks when I actually buy a ticket.
Yes indeed. You are a careful observer of the politics of several places, including those of my big hulking country. Harvard political scientist Danielle Allen would probably agree with your view that some of our political problems could be easily solved (or at least better managed) by certain relatively simple structural changes. Not sure if FPTP or balanced approaches involving first or second selections etc. are among them. One of them is simple yet virtually unthinkable. The number of representatives in the house was capped in 1929 at 435, even though the US population has nearly tripled since that time. Increasing the number so that populous states (like my home state of California) get proportionate representation would do wonders. Even, according to Allen, get rid of the need for gerrymandering. On that note, seeing what happened to Liz Truss and wishing we had the same tools here, made me envious of a parliamentary system. At a minimum, a crazed leader could be subjected to a no-confidence vote before he launches his country off a cliff. Even so, it's not clear that activists MAGA constituents would allow their representatives to do this even now. It appears we really are dealing with an organized cult. Enjoyed listening to your distinguished MP. Seems like a no-nonsense type of person who is willing to confront opponents with solid arguments well articulated.
Dear Ira Genium, could I please ask you to chop your comments into smaller chunks please? It would make it so much easier to read and to engage.
Thank you.