![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Horse Trading
Dec. 10th, 2008 09:24 amOf 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 #$&*ing something he was looking for was support for a program he supported, it would be a proper exercise of his power, regardless of the language used. Even if it was a matter of trading political favors in a more amorphous way, it would be legal and, given the imperfect work we live in, probably ethically justified.
But the media and some of the more naive reform types feed a notion that any deal-making is abhorrent. I grant that horse trading is problematic, because it can obscure corruption. But it is not in and of itself corrupt. It is the proper way that people who care passionately about one issue may, even if their opinion is not shared by a majority, prevail on that one issue at the expense of casting independent votes on issues they may care very little about. And that's fine, because if the majority felt just as passionately about the issue, there wouldn't be enough people to make a deal with the minority.
The last person among my friends to voice objection to me about such trading is actually a free-marketer. I don't see how you can say that the economy will work better with a minimum of regulation while also objecting to any fluidity in the political market.
But the media coverage, encouraged by the way Fitzgerald presented the case to the media, is twisted to obscure the difference between corruption and the legitimate workings of human beings in government.
It is only because the quid pro quo Blago was looking for was for personal gain that his actions were criminal. If the #$&*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.
