The First Sign Of Corruption

posted at 4:39 pm on December 7, 2009 by

The first sign of corruption in a society that is still alive is that the end justifies the means. – Georges Bernanos

The Climagate scandal is a perfect illustration of this statement. Modern society provides plenty of other examples. The extensive corruption of our political system is one of the strongest arguments against the ongoing fusion of government and industry. People of all political persuasions are generally willing to conceded that too many politicians are corrupt. I have always wondered how intellectually serious liberals can reconcile this with their desire to increase the power of the State.

I suspect the answer lies in the belief that this new crop of statists will be honest, unlike all the generations before them. This is a dangerous delusion. Corruption festers in every large organization, but politics are more vulnerable than business… and when the two merge together, they become particularly toxic.

Political corruption is easily camouflaged, and often debatable. Since politicians live to debate, nailing them down on charges of corruption often feels like trying to pin down a drop of water with a staple gun. If a politician sponsors legislation that would truly benefit the public, but would also make him personally wealthy, is he corrupt? We would certainly view him as more corrupt if he tried to conceal his personal benefits… but if he was scrupulous about disclosing them in advance, it’s unlikely he would be able to pass the legislation, especially if he faced determined opposition.

Consider the current example of Senator Max Baucus, who took his girlfriend on taxpayer-funded junkets overseas, and has been trying to secure a U.S. Attorney position for her. She might be a splendid candidate for U.S. Attorney, as Baucus will doubtless continue to argue. That doesn’t make her nomination smell any better. It also won’t make an overtaxed electorate, shivering in the cold shadow of trillion-dollar deficits, feel any better about paying for her luxurious jet-setting romance with the Senator..

The Republicans proved themselves sadly capable of shoving their noses in the treasury during their last years in power, and were punished by the voters for it. The corruption of the Obama Democrats is truly breathtaking. Virtually nothing this Administration does is conducted in a honest, open manner. Everything from the “stimulus” bill, to Cash for Clunkers, to frantic attempts to buy House and Senate votes for the government’s health care takeover, is wrapped in pork and glazed with payoffs, cooked with a secret recipe that you can’t see without a subpoena. Some of this corruption is enabled by the Democrats’ largely accurate sense that the media will not hold them accountable for it, certainly not with the same vigor they would pursue Republicans. The raging rapids of taxpayer cash surging through Washington are a factor as well. Reckless deficit spending has made purchasing a representative or Senator the only investment guaranteed to increase in value.

At this scale of government, corruption is endemic. It doesn’t make that much of a difference which party sits on top of that much power. With the rare exception prosecuted by law enforcement, there is little immediate risk of penalty for dirty politicians. It takes years to get them voted out of office, and their local electorate might not be eager to displace a powerful, long-term incumbent with a new representative… especially if the incumbent has brought a lot of money home to the district, in addition to lining his own pockets. Big Government even corrupts the voters.

Bring all of these factors to an even higher level of centralized power and money, and it’s easy to see why the global warming movement – the birthing cry of world government – is so incredibly corrupt. The amount of money and power tied up in this movement is staggering. In fact, as they become increasingly desperate to fight off a public outraged by the Climagate revelations, the global warming cult might make the case they’re “too big to fail” – cutting off the billions of dollars poured into the global warming hoax would cost thousands of jobs, and destroy the corporate barnacles that grew around the shadow of climate change legislation, such as Al Gore’s carbon credit sales. The transnational elite planning to divide the wealth of nations through climate-change hysteria is even less accountable than Barack Obama’s corrupt Democrat Party. As Mark Steyn memorably put it, where would we go to vote these guys out of office?

At the heart of the Left’s indulgence of political corruption lies the mistaken conviction that “public service” transforms politicians into exemplars of civic virtue, or that political office attracts a large percentage of such civic-minded individuals. In reality, the political class is even more greedy and selfish than wealthy businessmen… because they spend much of their time in the company of such wealthy men, and believe themselves entitled to riches and luxuries. Max Baucus doubtless attends a lot of campaign events sponsored by rich supporters who can afford to fly their girlfriends to Europe for a romantic getaway, and he believes himself morally and intellectually superior to these men – the remorseless logic of statism demands it. It only makes sense to place politicians in control of industry if they’re better than the industrialists they control, after all.

The mythic ideal of Cincinnatus, the selfless citizen-legislator who reluctantly leaves his farm to serve the Republic, is incompatible with the combination of endless incumbency and gigantic amounts of government power. We are foolish to place our trust in a system that requires an impossible level of virtue from politicians to function as designed. A limited government can better protect the economic health of its citizens by policing corruption from the private sector, under the direction of term-limited representatives who will never become worth the risk of buying off. The larger government becomes, the more its arrogant ruling class believe themselves worthy of royal treatment… and the more justified they feel about lying to the public for their own good. That is why the climate change elite gathered in Copenhagen this week is outraged that anyone would dare question their right to save a foolish world from itself, by lying through its teeth in a bid to seize power.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

endless incumbency

Robert Byrd, D (H,S) 56 years and counting
John Dingell, D (H) 53 years and counting
Daniel Inouye, D (H,S) 50 years and counting
John Conyers, D (H) 44 years and counting
David Obey, D (H) 40 years and counting
Charles Rangel, D (H) 38 years and counting
Bill Young, R (H) 38 years and counting
Thad Cochran, R (H,S) 36 years and counting
Pete Stark, D (H) 36 years and counting
Don Young, R (H) 36 years and counting

publiuspen on December 7, 2009 at 6:13 PM

It’s ironic that we have term limits on the executive branch (including in most states) and yet not on the legislative branch which actually makes the laws that hold all of us captive. (I can’t even bring myself to mention the Supreme Court.)

texabama on December 7, 2009 at 9:23 PM

It’s ironic that we have term limits on the executive branch (including in most states) and yet not on the legislative branch which actually makes the laws that hold all of us captive. (I can’t even bring myself to mention the Supreme Court.)

texabama on December 7, 2009 at 9:23 PM

You may already know this, but the Original Constitution did not include term limits for the Executive branch and it was a C Amendment that limited the Pres and VP’s time in office. I think the framers never envisioned ‘politicians for life’ and the development of a system that helps them retain power and keep getting re-elected. I believe a C Amendment that put limitations on terms in both the House and Senate would be very helpful in acheiving what the article implies is needed. With the Judicial branch, you could make thea rgument that the intent of Supreme Court Justices appointed for life was to apply a check against quick swings in public opinion.

Red State State of Mind on December 7, 2009 at 10:53 PM

+7%…!

Seven Percent Solution on December 7, 2009 at 11:06 PM

Elected office was never intended to be a career.

Daveyardbird on December 7, 2009 at 11:13 PM

I think the framers never envisioned ‘politicians for life’ and the development of a system that helps them retain power and keep getting re-elected.

No, and rightly so. The framers had just risked every earthly possession as well as their lives, and the lives of their families to throw off the yoke of a tyrant. And don’t forget, the “term limit” on the office of president was simply an extension of the personal integrity of our first president. It was respected until FDR decided he was a god who should serve as president-for-life. Post Roosevelt, the limit was placed on the office of President.

oldleprechaun on December 7, 2009 at 11:13 PM

And I apologize for failing to say “Thanks, Doctor Zero”.

oldleprechaun on December 7, 2009 at 11:14 PM

Red State State of Mind on December 7, 2009 at 10:53 PM

The only way for that to happen is by a state-forced amendment. We will never see Congress vote itself out of power.

In other words, ain’t gonna happen. But it needs to.

BobMbx on December 7, 2009 at 11:15 PM

The extensive corruption of our political system is one of the strongest arguments against the ongoing fusion of government and industry.

Make sure you remember to make that point when you’re writing speeches for the conservative candidate in a few years.

FloatingRock on December 7, 2009 at 11:30 PM

Make sure you remember to make that point when you’re writing speeches for the conservative candidate in a few years.

FloatingRock on December 7, 2009 at 11:30 PM

I will. I promise.

Doctor Zero on December 7, 2009 at 11:32 PM

Join the Game ?

J_Crater on December 8, 2009 at 12:03 AM

ernesto and crr6 check in to make the argument for democrat corruption in 5…4…3…2…

sawbuck on December 8, 2009 at 12:05 AM

I will. I promise.

Doctor Zero on December 7, 2009 at 11:32 PM

:)

Seriously though, I’m not kidding. I hope you have the opportunity and inclination. This isn’t an empty attempt to boost your spirits, you really are among the best at articulating conservative values, IMO.

FloatingRock on December 8, 2009 at 12:07 AM

“The end justifies the means.”

Or: “pragmatism.”
Or: “the absence of values.”

Unfortunately, both Democrats and Republicans are prone to abandoning principles in order to reach an end; the only difference being that they disagree on the end. The journey there is for all intents and purposes a free for all. Hey, “whatever works.”

The acceptance and embrace of pragmatism ultimately paves the way for someone to come along and say “if we impose a curfew after dark, we can virtually eliminate street crime,” or “if we enforce mandatory abortion, we can save the planet.”

This is why principles are important. Hence the Constitution.

Sharke on December 8, 2009 at 12:18 AM

Everything from the “stimulus” bill, to Cash for Clunkers, to frantic attempts to buy House and Senate votes for the government’s health care takeover, is wrapped in pork and glazed with payoffs, cooked with a secret recipe that you can’t see without a subpoena.

This is so very magnificently phrased that I actually whooped with joy at it…then I went from the language to the content, and I just got sad and sleepy.

Noocyte on December 8, 2009 at 12:31 AM

Mrs. Palin, find out who Dr. Zero is and hire him as your speech writer.

commodore on December 8, 2009 at 12:35 AM

On the short list of the most eloquent and effective arguments for restricted government that I have ever read. Pithy bits of brilliance run through it like veins of mithril in Moria.

Huzzah!

Noocyte on December 8, 2009 at 12:39 AM

I have always wondered how intellectually serious liberals can reconcile this with their desire to increase the power of the State.

Well, there’s your problem right there! There’s no desire to reconcile. They are the elite. The chosen (self selected) to lead us.
As Dr.Thomas Sowell stated that left wingers never bother to look in the rear-view mirror at the destruction in their wake. Problem is they don’t care. The ally themselves with Stalin’s comment that “You need to break some eggs to make an omelet.” Problem is the omelet never, ever gets made. The left just keeps on breaking eggs (for nearly a century) and demand we pay for them or go to jail.

Amendment X on December 8, 2009 at 12:49 AM

Dr. As usual very well thought out and well written. The elected for life are as corrupt as the mafia. Dingel (D-Mi) with over 50 years is a prime example of your point.

jainphx on December 8, 2009 at 1:12 AM

Doc, it goes to the idea that there is such a thing as a “Greater Good” to be served by one’s actions. The problem is that the existence of a “greater” good implies the existence of “lesser” goods – and similar categories for evil. This gives rise to the notion that one may commit acts of lesser evil in the pursuit of a nebulously-defined “greater” good.

That way lies chaos, which in military terms means barbarism (“war crimes” if you prefer; just ask Senator Kerry about the ones he claimed to have witnessed; and since he claimed to have participated in them, why he isn’t in Leavenworth even now). In politics it means tyranny (leaving President Obama’s Baronets aside, the EPA has today arrogated itself precisely WHAT powers?!?), and when a tyranny has the consent of the governed, there are none but the governed to blame.

Fortunately, we have a pair of elections coming in the next year, the primaries and the general election to determine who shall represent us at the seat of government. The primaries are at least as important this time around. If our choice is to be stuck with “half throttle Statists” who happen to wear the Elephant uniform versus “full throttle Statists” wearing the Donkey, then we are moral cowards who deserve the tyranny that results.

(Incidentally, whichever district you live in, Doc, if you announce your candidacy you’ve got a pretty strong national base built right in.)

Blacksmith on December 8, 2009 at 1:14 AM

Another great post doc zero, thank-you.

mcmm on December 8, 2009 at 1:31 AM

pssst…
Doctor Zero,
You should have a full access blogger title on HA. I Allah ain’t listening I bet Ace is… hmmmmmmmmmmm.
-
Don’t ban me bro..

Indian Outlaw on December 8, 2009 at 1:51 AM

Term limits are a great start. I think part of the problem also lies with our methods of candidate selection. How many of these guys start out as aides or staffers to a lawmaker? They are already part of the system before they are ever elected for the first time.

We need to figure out how to get ‘real’ people to serve for a limited period of time and then go back to their lives.

Government of the People, by the People, for the People…

trigon on December 8, 2009 at 1:58 AM

…politicians… nailing them down on charges of corruption often feels like trying to pin down a drop of water with a staple gun. — by Doctor Zero

Exactly
why we need more Rails, Tar, and Feathers!
Maybe, the “Tea Party” will bring a more effective
political strategy than the go-along-to-get-along style
of theGrand Old Party and its bitchy RINOs’?

Thanks for the meds Doc…

“Let’s Roll”

On Watch on December 8, 2009 at 2:16 AM

Reckless deficit spending has made purchasing a representative or Senator the only investment guaranteed to increase in value.


Waiting for my 401K plan, which dropped significantly in value, to offer this as an investment choice.

AltTuning on December 8, 2009 at 2:37 AM

So Doc, when’s your book coming out?

- The Cat

P.S. If you aren’t writing one you should.

MirCat on December 8, 2009 at 2:52 AM

Another home run Doc, I always look forward to your work. I did catch a typo, ‘conceded’ in paragraph one should read conceded I think. Apologies for nit-picking.

Paul Revere_1 on December 8, 2009 at 3:06 AM

Make that ‘concede’, sheesh

Paul Revere_1 on December 8, 2009 at 3:07 AM

I know they’ve all told you before DRZ, but it’s time for your own blog.

hawkdriver on December 8, 2009 at 3:10 AM

I would be grateful if someone could tell me if it is possible to contact Doctor Zero by e-mail. I’ve looked around a bit and have not been able to find a place where his e-mail address is given.

Rob

Rob Bennett on December 8, 2009 at 3:36 AM

I will. I promise.

Doctor Zero on December 7, 2009 at 11:32 PM

:)

Seriously though, I’m not kidding. I hope you have the opportunity and inclination. This isn’t an empty attempt to boost your spirits, you really are among the best at articulating conservative values, IMO.

FloatingRock on December 8, 2009 at 12:07 AM

Absolutely! And then fast track Doc Zero to replace Michael Steele as head of the RNC!

KendraWilder on December 8, 2009 at 3:51 AM

http://truthandcommonsense.com/2009/12/07/climategate-will-the-governments-push-past-the-false-science-and-still-wreck-your-life-you-betcha%e2%99%a0/

From my website commenting on this exact issue. The question is a simple equation with a guaranteed complex answer. How much will a people take before they say enough. It is now obvious the effort to control the lives of the civilian population is global. Beyond anything we had imagined before. Obama and his crew, along with a number of other world leaders, are working to close out all avenues of escape for the free minded citizen. No tax havens, no business opportunities, no land that invites innovation or free enterprise without the heavy hand of government run by elites.

The problem with this effort, as I point out in my post, is the matter of free will vs. enslavement and a free man’s natural resistance to being ruled. In Europe, the leadership has managed to disarm most of the population and have in place a heavy handed police force. Here in America things are not that way. No matter how much the left manages to drive people into government work from the private sector (thus giving the people a reason to support government action- think Mao) people are distrustful of government leadership. In fact, we are generations away (under normal corruptive efforts by the progressive movement) from being disarmed and so dumbed down that no one is left to resist being dominated by a few elites. It is my opinion and fear that the Obama administration and their allies in Congress, as well as in private industry (Soros, etc.), do not quite grasp the risk they are taking by forcing even a soft enslavement onto the people of this nation. When people can’t find work, their jobs stolen by a deficit driven “Green government”, can’t feed their kids and can’t house them properly, those same people are going to say enough.

Given the fact the elites in our nation will not change, nor leave their positions in power willingly, the options for grabbing back the inherent freedom given to us by our founding fathers is limited. As I said in my post-

“This is a shameful time in our history. If Jefferson were alive, he’d be pulling the plug on the experiment and pushing the reset button with the barrel of his musket.”

All nations fail, it is only how they fail that separates them from each other. One driving principle in all of the failures is the corruption and greed that infects the leadership to the point where the people have no choice but to start over or simply disappear from the face of history.

Which direction we go in will depend on how many people are left that remember what it is like to be a free.

archer52 on December 8, 2009 at 4:08 AM

Regarding the different expectations from Dems and GOP in the area of corruption. The Dems, having control of the cultural morals, excuse themselves -it’s that simple.

To pararphrase the Bill Clinton “lying under oath” history, when he was finally exposed to have been a liar when the blues dress was brought forth, the leftists, who had been denying his dishonest aggressively, merely shifted to, yes he lied, but he’s our liar!

You see, truth and honesty, with liberals, always remain flexible and are considered means to use and abuse, and never as ends in themselves -that is why they can do such evil and call it good (abortion -infanticide – euthansia death panels etc.) Like all evil people in history, they have no moral base, and will do whatever they please and call that good, as their followers nod in aggrement eagerly.
I’m afraid that we have yet to see the level of evil they will do when they finally consolidate their power. Looking at the people in the Whitehouse will give us a clue. These have never been humble people.

Don L on December 8, 2009 at 5:18 AM

As I stand watching this once strong country turning into a house of cards that is now trembling violently, I am amazed that the GOP hasn’t said loud and clear that this administration and the left is taking us down the Marxist route, destroying our economy, our morals, and our freedom, and promise that they will first clean their own house and then immediately roll back all that the left is doing -at least the voters will have a second chance at committing suicide.
Frankly, with the polls not showing 90% against what is happening,and a paucity of statesmen for leaders, I don’t hold out much hope.

Don L on December 8, 2009 at 5:30 AM

Don L

You mentioned the polls, & you are right about public ignorance. That’s why those in the GOP leadership who are with you in spirit–& there are plenty of them–have to tread carefully when criticizing the Left. To do any good, they have to win elections first.

jgapinoy on December 8, 2009 at 6:05 AM

A brief personnal exchange with the former congressperson Martin Frost some years ago (one of several):

I expressed to MartyBaby that term limits should be enacted for the House and Senate. He countered “what if you have a particularly good representative; they would be lost to service if there were term limits”; my counter was “so I can expect you to introduce legislation to revoke the term limits on the Presidency?”. He refused to speak with me further.

MartyBaby was thinking of himself when he iterated the line about having a particularly good representative. This was his belief system, a Freudian moment of self revelation. And this is what they all think, just as you stated Dr.0. They just can’t get over themselves.

Nice post. Keep your fingers limber, do your required calisthenics. If all the nonsense going on in the world stopped today, you’d still have enough material to work with for a decade.

Robert17 on December 8, 2009 at 6:21 AM

Doc you should be teaching a mandatory continuing education course for all politicians. Just in case you don’t, we’ll keep the tar and feathers ready for them.

tim c on December 8, 2009 at 7:07 AM

I would be grateful if someone could tell me if it is possible to contact Doctor Zero by e-mail. I’ve looked around a bit and have not been able to find a place where his e-mail address is given.

Rob

Rob Bennett on December 8, 2009 at 3:36 AM

Doc’s on twitter from time to time. Doc_0@twitter.com

You know, he lives in Fl. I wonder if he’s Rush :)

JiangxiDad on December 8, 2009 at 7:20 AM

endless incumbency

Robert Byrd, D (H,S) 56 years and counting
John Dingell, D (H) 53 years and counting
Daniel Inouye, D (H,S) 50 years and counting
John Conyers, D (H) 44 years and counting
David Obey, D (H) 40 years and counting
Charles Rangel, D (H) 38 years and counting
Bill Young, R (H) 38 years and counting
Thad Cochran, R (H,S) 36 years and counting
Pete Stark, D (H) 36 years and counting
Don Young, R (H) 36 years and counting
-
publiuspen on December 7, 2009 at 6:13 PM

-
May I add John Murtha, D (H) 35 years and counting

diogenes on December 8, 2009 at 7:33 AM

I would rather see gerrymandering outlawed than term limits. with technology today, the ability to create friendly districts protects these people more than anything else.

We also need to expand the house so that it more closely aligns to the framers vision of a people’s house. At the start of the country you had 1 rep for every 30,000 people. Now you have on avg 1 rep for every 500,000. that has reduced the “peoples’ power” by more than a factor of 10. When the increase in addtional groups allowed to vote such as landless citizens, women, blacks, etc the people’s power has been reduced more like a factor of 20. Or in other words a citizen today has 1/20th of the power a citizen in the 1800′s had.

The downside of term limits as commentor Spirit1776 has said is that once you are term limited you have no reason to vote the wishes of the people since you are not held up for reelection. You will have lameduck congresses which will pass all kinds of crap simply because they can.

No the real answer is to increase the power to the people to control their reps by increasing the size of the house and destroying gerrymandering.

finally to drive the final nail in the coffin. We should do away with 2 year election cycles in the house and hold election every year. The two year cycle was made when the mode of transportation and the flow of information took weeks to months to reach the population. with jet travel and the internet there is not reason to allow our reps two years before they must face the voters. Hold it every year and reduce the Senate term to 3 years.

Most of the crap that congress passes that are anti-democracy and anti-freedom occurs in the off-year election.

Those three things: increase the size of the house,outlaw gerrymandering, and holding elections every year will do far more than term limits ever could.

unseen on December 8, 2009 at 7:36 AM

unseen on December 8, 2009 at 7:36 AM

Two final thoughts.

Increasing the size of the house can be done without input from congress by passing the 1st proposed amendment to the consitution which has already been passed by several states and the Congress. there is no time limit on the amendment so all it needs to become the law of the land is a about 27 state houses passing it.

And finally by increasing the size of the house you will be definition go along way to decreasing the effect of gerrymandering.

This is something that the people have the power to change that the elites can not block. and it will be a mighty blow to the federal government power grab.

unseen on December 8, 2009 at 7:41 AM

Absolute brilliance, Doctor. As always.

Even EIB guest host Mark Davis has come around to the idea of term limits for members of Congress. I wish more talking heads would do so. Tis time to push a Constitutional amendment to make it happen, and Dr. Coburn of OK should be the man to lead it, along with Congressman Tom Cole.

It would be Sooner coolness if both men were persuaded to get the ball rolling.

itzWicks on December 8, 2009 at 7:44 AM

well said, doc.

ExTex on December 8, 2009 at 7:48 AM

The best part of their malfeasance is the near complete corruption of the media and the Public Relations support they provide. Once the feds begin to plug the red holes in newspaper’s balance sheets with the public dime it will be a fait accompli. The corruption and bribery of the television broadcasters is already established.

Beto Ochoa on December 8, 2009 at 8:13 AM

The ends justifies the means when the end itself is justifiable. In this case global warming itself is not justifiable by any means because the very science behind it is dubious at best.

Rattl3r on December 8, 2009 at 8:26 AM

I think a term limits amendment could pass if it grandfathered in all the current and former serving members. I mean, Congress won’t screw themselves, but are happy to screw others. If we end up with a majority next year, I will start writing my Congressman asking that he propose such a thing.

Kafir on December 8, 2009 at 8:32 AM

Red State State of Mind on December 7, 2009 at 10:53 PM

The only way for that to happen is by a state-forced amendment. We will never see Congress vote itself out of power.

In other words, ain’t gonna happen. But it needs to.

BobMbx on December 7, 2009 at 11:15 PM

Sure it’s gonna happen. We just haven’t found the RIGHT candidates yet. What say you Red State and Bob? Are you up for a game of fixer upper?
 
With the RIGHT candidates massive changes could be made to the Judicial branch as well. It’s short sighted to only look at who’s running for office. We must be sure the RIGHT people are deciding who gets into the office.

Blacksmith8 on December 8, 2009 at 8:41 AM

“The end justifies the means.”

Or: “pragmatism.”
Or: “the absence of values.”

This is why principles are important. Hence the Constitution.

Sharke on December 8, 2009 at 12:18 AM

I agree. I’d add
Or: “amoral.”

Blacksmith8 on December 8, 2009 at 8:43 AM

Make sure you remember to make that point when you’re writing speeches for the conservative candidate President Palin in a few years.

FloatingRock

FIFY

beachgirlusa on December 8, 2009 at 9:06 AM

This is truly a fine post. Nearly all of the commenters, including me, agree with your view that we should have term limits in congress. I think the major problem with the current system is the CONTINUOUS incumbency. I would be satisfied with a substantial break in incumbency.

I enjoyed your zingers which others have commented on. I hadn’t thought of them before.

I hope you convert Ed about term limits. It is one of the few things I have strongly disagreed with him about.

burt on December 8, 2009 at 9:15 AM

Comment pages: 1 2