Setting the Record Straight

Understanding the real origins of pay-to-play politics 

The connection between prominent political leaders and the causes they stand for (or, at least, the causes they come to be associated with) is often very strong in the minds of the members of the general public. Sometimes, it's as if the political leader and the stands he or she takes are indistinguishable. It's hard to think of New Deal, for instance, without thinking of Franklin Roosevelt (and vice versa).

For those who champion a particular cause, however, these kinds of automatic connections are frequently a two-edged sword.

On the one hand, one charismatic person's personal popularity can almost singlehandedly elevate a cause or issue well-beyond the heights to which it would have otherwise risen. Think of Ronald Reagan's sunny charm and the way it helped advance what was really a pretty dark and pessimistic ideology about government and human nature.

The downside to these kinds of connections is that when one individual leader's career flames out as the result of some peccadillo or other personal transgression unrelated to the actual issues he or she stood for, it can often wreak undeserved havoc with the cause. Whatever the substantive strengths or weaknesses of conservative Christianity, for example, its ultimate success or failure as a philosophy ought not to be byproduct the fact that some of its most prominent spokespeople have proved to be corrupt hypocrites.  

Of Easley and Edwards

Right now, in North Carolina (aka "Corruption Central") we're seeing plenty of examples of this kind guilt-by-association politics. With the absurd self-destructions of sometime-progressives, Mike Easley and John Edwards, it seems as if all who have ever held positive feelings about the men or any of the issues they championed are on the defensive.  

To make matters even more confusing, illogical and unfair, sometimes a flawed leader's fall can inflict damage upon a cause that wasn't really even his or hers to begin with. This is especially common when cynical and opportunistic political opponents try to conflate the two.

To witness this kind of cynical opportunism in action, one must look no further than the work of North Carolina's various conservative blogs, radio talking heads, commentators and think tanks of late as they've done their worst to link the political self-destructions of Easley and Edwards to the ideological debate. Scarcely a day goes by when Easley or Edwards (or Jim Black for that matter) isn't derided by one of these ideologues as a "liberal" or "big government" Democrat - as if shady, insider deal-making and marital infidelity and narcissism were somehow a function of where one stands on the political spectrum.

Some of this is to be expected, of course. The two men were the most prominent Democratic officeholders in the state at one time. That they are now disgraced under such ignominious circumstances was sure to inflict at least a little collateral damage on their political party and some of the causes it sometimes champions.  

But, for the most part, this is a ridiculous result for at least two reasons that have been widely ignored of late in the public debate.

"Buy-partisan" corruption

The first and most obvious flaw in the effort to link corruption to progressives is the disputable fact that political sleaze is, as local good government advocate Bob Hall reminded us on the Democracy NC website this week, a "buy-partisan" matter:

"The head of the Republican Party in North Carolina is excitedly claiming the GOP will make corruption in Raleigh a big enough campaign issue to win majority control of the General Assembly. NC GOP Chair Tom Fetzer is fond of saying the "culture of corruption has risen out of a century of one-party dominance in state government." He was in the news again today, chastising Gov. Bev Perdue for not forcing Democratic fundraiser Lanny Wilson off the NC Board of Transportation and NC Turnpike Board as soon as it became known that he used his insider influence to get environment permits for the coastal developments of Gary and Randy Allen.

Fetzer may want to be careful where he points. One of those developments, Cannonsgate, is becoming well known because of the waterfront lot purchased by former Democratic Gov. Mike Easley and because of its central role in the indictment of Ruffin Poole (see Jan. 22 entry below). Now Jack Betts of the McClatchy chain has a column that traces the Cannonsgate mischief back to the days when Republican Gov. Jim Martin was in charge and the original developer of the Cannonsgate property, GOP fundraiser E. Steve Stroud of Raleigh, was using his influence to gain favored treatment from Martin's environment officials. Betts' column names the secretary of Gov. Martin's environment agency, Tommy Rhodes, but he doesn't name one of the department assistant secretaries: Tom Fetzer. Fetzer was later a chief deputy secretary in Gov. Martin's Department of Transportation, which provided so many favors to GOP political patrons that it merited an investigative series by ace reporter Barry Yeoman in the NC Independent called "Highway Robbery." Political corruption is buy-partisan."

In other words, North Carolina conservative activists and political types ought to be careful when they attempt to turn malfeasance by public officials into a partisan or ideological issue. There are plenty of conservative Republican crooks and philanderers out there - both in North Carolina and elsewhere.

The real source of the problem

The truth of the matter, of course, is that the real sources of corruption (and probably even a lot of marital infidelity) are power and greed - power because one usually has to have some in order to have something to "sell" and greed because one has to be willing to puts one's own self-interest ahead of the public good when one does it.

This last point about greed highlights another interesting fact. If there is a popular modern ideology that is more closely connected to (and used to self-justify) greedy behavior by politicians, it is the "me-first," "every person for him or herself" ideology of modern, market fundamentalist capitalism.

This is not to say that more conservative politicians are corrupt. Rather, it is to point out the obvious fact that we live in a time in which the conservative, hyper-competitive, market fundamentalist, "greed is good" ideology is ascendant in our culture. Politicians are people too. They watch television. They see the way modern America celebrates the individual entrepreneurs and giants of industry who "make something of themselves." Not surprisingly, many of them identify with that approach to life and view their public service as, at least in part, connected to their personal rise up the ladder.    

Unfortunately, the conservative, "greed is good" ideology has come to so permeate our culture that it's almost impossible for any officeholder who's not already extremely wealthy - whatever his or her party - to escape its tug. These people get elected to office and see the money and other perks being thrown around by corporations and other moneyed interests and find it impossible to resist. Pretty soon they're looking in the mirror each morning and telling themselves that their greedy behavior is just part of "how things work in America."  

Sadly, they may be right. But it hasn't always been this way. No matter what the conservative propaganda machine says, there have been periods in our country in which the common good was widely elevated over the personal acquisition of wealth and in which, as a result, fewer politicians fell prey to temptation.

Let's hope that in addition to boosting new and tougher state ethics laws, the Easley and Edwards episodes can also be used as a part of a general effort to push back against the influence of the "greed is good" ideology in our culture.

Perhaps more people will come to see that while conservatives may be leading the charge in attacking the misdeeds of Easley and Edwards, in many ways they're just reaping what they themselves have helped sow.      

 Email This Post  Print This Post

This entry was posted on Saturday, January 30th, 2010 at 9:52 am and is filed under Setting the Record Straight. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.