Horse Trading

[barking_iguana]

Of course Blagojevich is scum. And trading an appointment for personal gain, which he's accused of, is among the worst forms of corruption.

But the media coverage, encouraged by the way Fitzgerald presented the case to the media, is twisted to obscure the difference between corruption and the legitimate workings of human beings in government.

It is only because the quid pro quo Blago was looking for was for personal gain that his actions were criminal. If the #$&*ing something he was looking for was support for a program he supported, it would be a proper exercise of his power, regardless of the language used. Even if it was a matter of trading political favors in a more amorphous way, it would be legal and, given the imperfect work we live in, probably ethically justified.

But the media and some of the more naive reform types feed a notion that any deal-making is abhorrent. I grant that horse trading is problematic, because it can obscure corruption. But it is not in and of itself corrupt. It is the proper way that people who care passionately about one issue may, even if their opinion is not shared by a majority, prevail on that one issue at the expense of casting independent votes on issues they may care very little about. And that's fine, because if the majority felt just as passionately about the issue, there wouldn't be enough people to make a deal with the minority.

The last person among my friends to voice objection to me about such trading is actually a free-marketer. I don't see how you can say that the economy will work better with a minimum of regulation while also objecting to any fluidity in the political market.

Comments

[chemoelectric.livejournal.com]

I do have one thing to say about this, which is that if Blago appoints you to the Senate, it probably would be best to decline. :)

[jpmassar.livejournal.com]

Even if the quid pro quo was for personal gain (which makes it illegal),
it's still nothing that would cause more than a raised eyebrow or two
if done discreetly and say, with some time delay.

The sheer idiocy of talking about it in such blatant terms over the phone
when every person in the state knew his phone was being tapped, and
apparently trying to engage top aides to the President-elect, is, I
suspect, what has caused a lot of the attention.

[cinema-babe.livejournal.com]

The limited media I've seen on this didn't seem to be critical of the deal making so much as the fact that he seems to have a shopping list of perks he wanted in exchange for the Senate seat. I never got the idea that anyone was criticizing political deal making per se.

In tangentially related news, do you have a sense who will get the nod for Hil's old seat? I know that Caroline Kennedy's name has been in the news but is there anyone else besides Fran Dresher who's angling for it?

[barking-iguana.livejournal.com]

I'd not be shocked if it went to Andrew Cuomo, getting him out of the gubernatorial race.

[jpmassar.livejournal.com]

There are many NY State pols 'angling' the the Senate appointment
along with Cuomo. Don't have a list in front of me though.

If Kennedy is appointed, none of these pols can be pissed that
Patterson appointed a rival. That seems like a plus.

Further, if Kennedy is appointed, Patterson would presumably
get some pretty significant backing (monetarily, politically, behind-the-scenes, etc) for the Governor's race. That might
be worth as much or more as insuring that Cuomo won't challenge him.

[jpmassar.livejournal.com]

Essay on Blagojevich's idiocy:

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/insanity-defense

I resemble that remark

[elgorade.livejournal.com]

Whether or not I was the free-trader that Dvd mentioned, I do believe a bit of the contradiction he sees.

It isn't fully thought out. It may not be fully consistent. But I think there are a few reasons why horse trading in politics bothers me more than deal making in business.

* It is misaligned. Deal making in business is expected to be about self-interest. In politics it is supposed to be _not_ about self interest directly, but about self-interest indirectly. I think that's a pretty gray area.

* It is costly. The TARP bill may be a good example. To get it passed, 100 billion of other, unrelated, provisions where added (according to a story from the NYT at the time), but those items are not brought up for discussion. One way to look at that is a 15% tax on the fund just for political horse trading -- i.e. just because politicians realized that they had game-theoretical power over a high profile bill.

* It is (often) hypocritical. Perhaps not always the same people, that's a difficulty with group labels. It seems fairly often that (Democratic) politicians will denounce the problems of the free market. So a defense of their own conduct as it just being the free market of political influence appears hypocritical.


I don't pretend that horse trading won't go on, and I don't really believe it shouldn't. The misalignment of what is acceptable is just a grey areas and there are lots of those in the world. The costliness and the hypocrisy are the two issues that bother me most. So my suggestions is keep all bills to one topic. Trade support on votes to distinct bills, but don't tie the two disparate causes together on one bill. Of course, that requires a bit more trust, but surely our politicians can trust each others. More importantly it helps make the cost more explicit and more open -- both good liberal economic virtues.

Of course, that won't cure hypocrisy, but I don't know that there is a cure for that.