Blagojevich tries to sell an appointment to the Senate
As you have all likely heard, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, already publicly under federal investigation, was arrested and charged with trying to personally profit from his right to appoint the successor to Barack Obama as Senator from Illinois.
Given that he and everyone else knew he was being investigated, that he would say what he is alleged to have said on phone calls he absolutely knew may have been tapped, is just insane. It shows how disconnected from common sense people can become. I hope they throw the book at him.
Still, an argument can be made that this is no big deal. As Andrew said, is this sort of corruption really godawful? If he and Rahm Emanuel had agreed that in exchange for his nominating who Obama wanted to fill the seat the Obama administration would push for 25 new schools and hospitals in Illinois, that would be perfectly legal. Normal, ordinary political horsetrading. But if the Governor seeks a $500,000 a year job for himself, its bribery. I note that $500,000 a year is a whole lot less, to say the least, than 25 new schools and hospitals would cost! Yet the one is normal politics and the other is the worst form of bribery, suitcases of cash in essence. Is one really that much morally worse than the other? More harmful to the Republic? A serious argument could be made, but I don't feel like making it now.
PLEASE UPDATE THE RSS FEED
18 hours ago
3 comments:
it is very different. Rather than make $500k for himself, if Blago negotiates the deal for hospitals and schools, the people he governs would benefit, rather than himself personally, which is what you hope your elected representative does. It may cost the republic more $, but at least there is a corresponding benefit to the republic, rather than to just his bank account.
Bryan:
You're assuming that the corresponding benefit to the Republic of the hospital is worth its costs. What if the hospital costs $25 million but because it isn't really needed, its benefits are only $20 million? Then you're $5 million in the hole, and it would have been better to have given him $1 million in cold hard cash and been done with it. This example is horribly simplified, but makes an extremely important point.
I understand what you're saying. And if you're just talking about pure numbers, it's a good argument. But when you vote for your elected representative, the expectation is that he will work for the good of the people, not for himself (other than the tangential benefits). Under your example, most elected representatives in the senate/house could be viewed as "corrupt" because they get as much for their constituency as they can without regard to the cost to the republic v. benefit (Bridge to Nowhere). The pork barrell spending that was such a big part of McCain's platform. But at least with pork barrell spending, the local constituency sees a benefit, even if it is at the expense of the country as a whole. With a corrupt politician, the constituency does not benefit, just the elected official. So when you ask who is better off, it depends who you ask. The country as a whole, or the constituency. The constituency sees the governor as working for them, so they would likely feel he should be doing for them, not himself. The country's coffers might benefits from his choice, but the locals who elected him would not feel that way. And what is the cost to our psyche as a country if we believe that all our politicians are better off if they fatten their own wallets, rather than do good for their people. Would any good work get done if politicians were encouraged to work for themselves, rather than their constituency. But I digress, and ramble, . . .
Post a Comment