Filed Under: Columns • Headline • The Goal Is Freedom
Corruption in Government? Shocking!
The circle can't be squared.
It’s funny how the people who push hardest for government intervention in more and more areas are the first to gripe that everything has become politicized. What were they expecting? Did they forget that government is a political institution?
Paul Krugman and Chris Matthews, among other Progressives, are apoplectic because two senators of the minority party held up votes on Obama appointments in order to win pork-barrel projects for their states. This reminds me of Captain Renault’s reaction to learning that people gamble in Rick’s gin joint.
Krugman acknowledges that this sort of thing is old hat, but he is upset that it’s become more common. Perhaps, but it was only a matter of time before the device known as the “hold” would be more widely used. The stakes have gotten higher over the years.
How in the world could the central government commandeer $3.8 trillion — about a third of it borrowed — without reelection-hungry politicians being willing to walk over their mothers to get at that honey pot?
When someone insists he can square the circle, you know you’re looking at a demagogue or a zealot. Same goes for someone who insists you can have a government that exercises plenary powers over our lives without generating politics in the most unsavory sense of the word. I suspect that people like Krugman and Matthews know you can’t have one without the other, but they would like to have it so bad that they feign shock when a senator holds up a vote until he gets a government contract and a some superfluous building for his state.
People of this ilk showed the same reaction when the Supreme Court ruled recently that corporations (for- and nonprofit) and unions cannot be barred from spending political money during election campaigns. (McCain-Feingold outlawed so-called independent expenditures by all incorporated entities, except media companies, 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election. The Court said that is unconstitutional.) Progressives are appalled that such entities would try to influence the selection of officeholders in a government that holds life-and-death power over so many aspects of life. Did they think people with interests at stake would just stand by passively? Apparently so, and when the affected organizations refused to stand by, the “good-government” crowd opted for gagging them, showing unmistakably how devoted that crowd is to free speech when the chips are down. Now they (and Obama) blast the five Supreme Court justices for saying the gag is unconstitutional.
One need not love big corporations or big unions — both of which derive significant power from the State — to be offended by this restriction on freedom of speech. Remember the slippery slope! Whose speech might next be deemed too influential and in need of restricting? Besides, it’s not as though corporations and unions have no other ways to influence politicians and policies. I suspect that spending during campaigns is the weakest method of influencing the government. Voters still have to go into the booth and mark the “right” ballots, and politicians can’t risk alienating the median voter. As Tyler Cowen points out:
For all the anecdotal evidence, it’s hard to show statistically that money has a large and systematic influence on political outcomes. That is partly because politicians cannot stray too far from public opinion. (In part, it is also because interest groups get their way on many issues by supplying an understaffed Congress with ideas and intellectual resources, not by running ads or making donations.) It is quite possible that the court’s decision won’t affect election results very much.
So, memo to Krugman, Matthews, et al.: You can’t have the kind of government you want without people inside and outside the halls going to great lengths to get their hands on that power. You know it, and so does anyone who spends five minutes thinking it through. Enough whining already.
Of course, what I just said suggests way to end the power brokering, log rolling, and influence peddling:
Don’t let government commandeer our resources and manage our lives!
If there are no privileges to sell, there are no privileges to buy.
I’m sure the Progressives are saying, “Gosh, why didn’t we think of that?”
Well, no, not really. They apparently would sacrifice anything to preserve the machinery of social engineering, which they need to realize their grand designs. They rhapsodize about democracy, but their words betray their true preferences. Why else would they insist that Obamacare be passed despite the opposition of a majority of the public? Why do they smugly insist that the only reason the people are against it is that Obama did not explain the 2,500-page plan clearly enough in dozens of speeches?
When will the Progressives realize that although they claim to despise corporate influence in government, it is their Progressive forbears who helped forge the implements of power to which the corporate world has ready access.
This government doesn’t merely breed corruption. It is corruption.
Comment by Dr.Steve on 12 February 2010:
Sheldon, wouldn’t it be interesting to subject these progressive types to a polygraph? Do they really believe this stuff they say?
Comment by mds on 12 February 2010:
Dr. Steve,
As to our progressive rulers, I suspect a some don’t. But their subject believers sure do. It’s obvious to me there are a significant number of successful, apparently intelligent people who honestly believe in government power as the solution to societal ills, despite all evidence to the contrary and the complete immorality of the proposition. While I can understand the ignorance of historical evidence, as many are poorly informed on numerous topics, what continually shocks me is the inability to recognize that their views basically call for ever more radical extinguishing of basic (negative conception of) human rights.
Mr. Richman,
Your comment that “You can’t have the kind of government you want without people inside and outside the halls going to great lengths to get their hands on that power” sums it up perfectly. Yet another example of “liberal”/statist fantasy of how the world should work (our could, if only enough force and money were applied — hint, it’s never enough) rather than simply acknowledging the way it actually does.
Thanks for your work.
Comment by Sheldon Richman on 12 February 2010:
I almost enjoy watching Chris “Nerf Ball” Matthews go into paroxysms of outrage. It really the only reason to watch his show.
Pingback by More Government = More Corruption - Civitas Review Online on 12 February 2010:
[...] N&O reveals yet another case of government corruption in North Carolina state government, Sheldon Richman describes why liberals and “progressives” are complete hypocrites to express dismay over political [...]
Comment by Tim Kelly on 12 February 2010:
Can we all agree that Chris Matthews is an ignoramus? His show is a forum for political gossip and partisan bickering where very little time is alloted for substantive debate. How can a guy you worked for the late Tip O’Neill complain about pork barrel politics? Didn’t O’Neill say “all politics is local.” Of course Matthews thinks Big Government is a good thing. He’s done very well by it.
Pingback by Liberty Reads for February 12, 2010 | Liberty Movement HQ on 12 February 2010:
[...] Corruption in Government? Shocking! Share and Enjoy: [...]
Comment by Dennis on 12 February 2010:
In regards to Dr. Steve’s comments, it is always interesting to me that not only do the Paul Krugmans of the world believe what they spout, they somehow also believe that even though interventionism has never worked in the past it will somehow bring us Utopia if we just do it their way this time. They can neither see the arrogance nor the hypocrisy in their demands.
BTW, does Paul Krugman remind anybody else of Ellsworth Toohey, the bad guy in Ayn Rand’s book, ‘The Fountainhead?’ Toohey is the guy who realized it was better to be the guy who pulled the strings of the leader than it was to be the leader. When the leader gets booted out, the puppeteer simply finds another puppet.
Comment by J. Shaffer on 13 February 2010:
“One need not love big corporations or big unions — both of which derive significant power from the State — to be offended by this restriction on freedom of speech.”
I’m not offended at all. . . I cheer it.
Since Corporations and Unions are NOT Sovereign Citizens, they have NO Free Speech Rights – or any Rights at all, for that matter.
Only Individual People have rights. Conflating Corporations with People is demagoguery of a most insidious sort.
The Supremes caved.
Pingback by Rebellion News on 13 February 2010:
[...] The Goal Is Freedom: Corruption in Government? Shocking [...]
Comment by Christy on 18 February 2010:
Question for J. Shaffer:
As a matter of practicality, let’s say free individuals wish to work together to make a movie — perhaps on a political issue. They need to get a lot of people involved, and they’re all involved to different degrees. Some give time and talent, some money, some equipment, etc. This project will take some time, will require cooperation and commitments, and will see people both join and leave the venture during the course of it.
How do you suggest these free people make this happen? Within what you see as the constitutional confines that the SCOTUS failed to recognize?
Pingback by The Economic Crisis is Only a Symptom | Monty Pelerin's World on 20 February 2010:
[...] Once politicians gained life and death power over the economy, their decisions took on value. As Sheldon Richman stated: “If there are no privileges to sell, there are no privileges to buy.” Businesses [...]
Pingback by The Economic Crisis is Only a Symptom - Monty Pelerin's World on 20 February 2010:
[...] Once politicians gained life and death power over the economy, their decisions took on value. As Sheldon Richman stated: “If there are no privileges to sell, there are no privileges to buy.” [...]
Comment by Drik on 19 July 2010:
Is Krugman really that naive, or is he doing the typical sycophantic posturing, to avoid anyone concluding that he doesn’t know what he is talking about?
Comment by Rich on 19 July 2010:
Ihave often wondered if Keynes actually believed his theories or was it merely an attempt to gain favor with those in power by justifying what they would do anyway? It was a good lifetime gig.
The same could be asked of Krugman or Mathews.
Comment by Colin Patrick on 20 July 2010:
It’s not possible to solve problems with the same mentality that created them.