What’s Wrong with the World

That is the sin of Blagojevich - that he was so very vulgar in his self-dealing.

No. His sin was political corruption, for which he likely will go to prison for a long time, along with a number of those who were his partners in crime. The very system that you mis-characterize and bewail will punish him.

The very system that you mis-characterize and bewail will punish him.

Proving only that the system punishes, ruthlessly, the reckless disclosure of its obscene secret supplement, the perverse double on which it is dependent.

in which pols transition seamlessly from "public" service to lucrative employments in lobbying and the private sector

Oh, please. I have no patience with this. The smell of moral equivalence is bad enough in the morning but if possible even worse in the afternoon and evening.

This post implies that the only difference between the selling of a senate seat and the transition from politics to political consulting and lobbying in the private sector is that the former is more vulgar than the latter, the two being otherwise morally equal instances of political corruption. From this, as far as I can tell, it would follow that to be morally consistent we should either criminalize the latter or decriminalize the former. And God forbid that we should, _what_ was that phrase ????!!!!, "cluck our tongues" over the attempt to sell a senate seat to the highest bidder if we aren't prepared to condemn with equal tongue-clucking fervor all those wicked seamless transitions from the public to the private sphere.

Those who hang around with Democrats (on-line or otherwise) start sounding like them eventually, moral equivalence nonsense being one of their stocks in trade. Or maybe the resemblance of modus operandi is due to some other cause. In either event, I dissent.

The two actions, or sets of actions, under consideration are two species of the same genus, namely, the confusion of public and private interests and goods, the exploitation of the perquisites of public office for the purposes of private gain. If you would like to argue that the one is of especial malignancy, while the other is a mere peccadillo, or perhaps wholly benign, be my guest, as the mechanism of differentiation I posit does not preclude all rank ordering. Two related species can differ in temperament and aggression, though we should be undeceived on the point that white sharks and hammerheads will devour us, or at least kill us, in the wrong circumstances. What I find mystifying is the desire to dignify the scrofulous business of influence-peddling in the managerial state as something more than it is, as though factional interests become common goods once some venal pol takes them up as legislative crusades. The exaggerated expressions of outrage represent not so much a passion for the uprooting of corruption as a determination to avoid reckoning with its routinization in institutions everyone assumes to be legitimate, the meta-level frameworks within which political debates assume moral colouration.

Those who hang around with Democrats (on-line or otherwise) start sounding like them eventually

Now, that is interesting: We are forbidden to entertain the notion that pols who hang around with factional interests attempting to purchase influence become corrupt in a morally significant way, but hanging around with Democrats leads to moral nonsense! And this strongly implies that hanging around with them is morally equivalent to embracing the totality of their doctrines! Of course, the notion is absurd: I hung out with loads of Dispensationalists while at Cedarville and never once was I tempted to revert to that strange Nineteenth-century evangelical creed. Will I become a libertarian because I have the works of von Mises and Rothbard in my library, or a supporter of abortion rights because some coworkers support them? In any event, I have no patience for the conservatism of aversion, according which suspicion automatically adheres to anything said by a liberal or lefty, such that it is somehow unconservative to concur, or to entertain the thing. I abstain.

There's the added complication that those "seamless transitions" are legal, while selling a senate seat is not. It's rather a sharp distinction. Of course, one could make the case that seamless transitions (allowing one to benefit financially from one's previous political experience) are, while legal, nevertheless immoral. But the problem is that they quite obviously are not.

But the problem is that they quite obviously are not.

It is far from obvious that a pol ostensibly pursuing the "public interest" while keeping one eye fixed upon the advantages awaiting him when he retires from "public service", or who, while in office, possesses the power to determine the conditions of his post-political life, is engaged in obviously moral activities. In other words, these situations are not obviously moral because they involve someone failing to faithfully discharge the duties of his office, which do not include feathering his nest, dealing to his future self, and the like. Public authority exists to subserve the common good, and not as a vehicle of private enrichment and rapine, and the ethical peril in all of this is the conflation of the two, their being made fungible by the introduction of unfathomable sums of money.

Then again, perhaps classical republican political virtues are no longer obvious.

So, let me get this straight: if a politician asks for money in exchange for a political favor, it's called corruption. But when a citizen trades his vote in exchange for an entitlement, it's called democracy. All that Blagojevich has done was emulate the voters that elected him.

I've been searching everywhere for the "vulgar term" Blago called the Obameister, but can't find it. What was it? Doody-head?

Morgana:

It was a synonym for maternal copulater.

"Public authority exists to subserve the common good, and not as a vehicle of private enrichment and rapine, and the ethical peril in all of this is the conflation of the two, their being made fungible by the introduction of unfathomable sums of money."

Really? All it took was "unfathomable sums of money"? I sort of thought that man's fallen nature made this problem (conflating private gain and common good) a given in all political systems? And at least the genius of the American system is that we developed checks and balances to stop any one "faction" from claiming a monopoly on the common good (which is tough enough to discern without democratic norms and institutions). I mean back in the day, were we better off because Jefferson could retreat to his estate (complete with slaves) as opposed to a lucrative job in lobbying or the private sector? I mean, now that I think about it, unless you were a politician for life -- you had to retreat to the private sector. I guess you prefer only rich men to pursue public office, that way they won't have to worry about providing for their families once they leave public service.

"one a tragedy - the impending collapse of the domestic automobile industry, and with it much of America's remaining manufacturing capacity and expertise, and therewith as well any hope of America rectifying its chronic trade imbalances and avoiding an ultimate reduction to the status of economic colony"

By "domestic automobile industry" I assume you mean American corporations whose principal shareholders are also American (although they don't have to be). Because you must know that Toyota, Honda, Nissan, etc. employ many American engineers, workers, managers -- all of whom are thriving and contributing to American manufacturing capacity and expertise. Detroit's fall is a cautionary tale about the UAW (and managerial hubris...Americans would have bought American cars if Detroit had produced quality products all those years that Toyota, etc. were gaining ground on them). American manufacturing capacity and expertise will do fine if we give it a chance to make profitable products.

So, let me get this straight

I have no recollection of writing anything different.

I sort of thought that man's fallen nature made this problem (conflating private gain and common good) a given in all political systems?

I employed a figure of speech, in which one aspect of the situation represented the situation in its entirety; fallen human nature leads men to pursue those unfathomable sums of money in preference to the duties of their stations, and so the occasion of sin becomes a symbol of the moral failing. The reason for this usage is quite simple: blaming egregious failings and corruptions on protean, fallen human itself, with only minimal consideration of the specific forms assumed by that nature in particular circumstances, has become, for many, a way of extending toleration to the intolerable.

I mean back in the day, were we better off because Jefferson could retreat to his estate (complete with slaves) as opposed to a lucrative job in lobbying or the private sector?

I do not believe that these options exhaust the alternatives. Perhaps part of the problem is that many do believe these options exhaustive.

I mean, now that I think about it, unless you were a politician for life -- you had to retreat to the private sector.

Indeed, and a major impetus to the development of Founding-era theories of governments of limited and delegated powers was precisely the concern that, unless such powers were strictly enumerated, political office would become the equivalent of a sinecure, an engine of private enrichment. Such structural perverse incentives being an aspect of the English system which the colonists regarded as exploitative, and productive of misgovernance, most of the Founders were determined to avoid replicating the very thing against which they rebelled.

I guess you prefer only rich men to pursue public office, that way they won't have to worry about providing for their families once they leave public service.

Actually, the logical import of my jeremiad is quite the opposite: that it is increasingly the case that only exceptionally rich men can afford to pursue public office is a function of the distance of the present American system from the classical republicanism of the Founders. Because political office carries with it the power of dispensing many favours, and of gaining many opportunities, it has become a valuable commodity.

Actually, there is a vast difference between a dedicated domestic industry, the engineering and manufacturing expertise of which are also domestically-located, and the profits of which are retained domestically, and foreign-owned transplants, the engineering and critical manufacturing of which are conducted overseas, and the profits of which, in the main, accrue to foreign headquarters or subsidiaries. The decline of Detroit is a tale of calamitous mismanagement, overreaching unions, and often-shoddy products; but it is also a tale of the momentous alterations of American tax and trade policy over the past two generations, and the retention by our trading partners of their protective industrial policies.

the system punishes, ruthlessly, the reckless disclosure of its obscene secret supplement, the perverse double on which it is dependent

No. The system punishes law breakers, and it depends upon the disclosers to help it punish them.

The system calls certain corruptions by their name, and dignifies the others by such honorifics as "free speech", "democracy", and "meritocracy". The reason for the discrimination has much to do with the fact that the latter are integral to the functioning of managerial democracy; they are the systemic lubricants.

Maximos:

I was not technically responding to you. I was opining on the Blago case per se.

Frank

The system calls certain corruptions by their name, and dignifies the others by such honorifics as "free speech", "democracy", and "meritocracy".

Rubbish.

Go, Michael. I can always depend on you to say the sensible thing succinctly.

Maximos, to clarify: I didn't mean to say that it's _inevitable_ that people who hang around with leftists end up having the leftists' particular set of obsessions, their willingness to say crazily false and outrageous things (like "and it is this, and only this - and the greater ingenuity and sophistication it requires and instantiates - that differentiates our American system from vulgar kleptocracy, be it African..." etc.), and their lack of any sense of proportion. I merely read the post and reasoned, as Sherlock Holmes would say, from effects to causes.

I was going to say that there was merit in Jeff's observations, but given his opposition to meritocracy, he may consider it an insult.

Don't just do something; stand there.

Actually, the logical import of my jeremiad is quite the opposite: that it is increasingly the case that only exceptionally rich men can afford to pursue public office is a function of the distance of the present American system from the classical republicanism of the Founders. Because political office carries with it the power of dispensing many favours, and of gaining many opportunities, it has become a valuable commodity.

Which was made possible through the consolidation of Federal power, at the expense of the Constitution.

Well Maximos, I suppose the question is whether you are over-generalizing... but I agree that what you are saying about the corruption of influence-peddling and so on is correct.

Rubbish.

What is rubbish is the idea that conflicts of interest are restricted to such egregious occurrences as the attempted sale of political office; and since this assumption is rubbish, nothing in my piece is false or outrageous.

I was going to say that there was merit in Jeff's observations, but given his opposition to meritocracy, he may consider it an insult.

Heh. Meritocracy means considerably more in our society than the distribution, by whatever mechanisms, of positions, emoluments, and benefits in accordance with demonstrated excellences or qualifications. It is this something more than is objectionable.

Don't just do something; stand there.

Often sound advice. It all depends upon what is accomplished by doing nothing.

Those who hang around with Democrats (on-line or otherwise) start sounding like them eventually, moral equivalence nonsense being one of their stocks in trade.

That is comedy gold. It should be apparent considering my circle of Republican friends and family that I began sounding like them by osmosis. Help me, I contracted a Republican meme, the taint, the taint.

Maximos, do you remember when political corruptions scandals came as a shock? Yeah, me neither.

What is rubbish is the idea that conflicts of interest are restricted to such egregious occurrences as the attempted sale of political office

No, what is rubbish is the implication that a namby-pamby, milk-and-water phrase like "conflicts of interest" should be used to cover _obviously different things_, one of which _might or might not be wrong, depending on a whole bunch of factors_. What is rubbish is the implication that a mere _occasion_ for _possible_ unethical behavior and/or mixed motives is at all to be compared to a _concrete and unequivocal instance_ of the sale of political power. What is rubbish is a statement to the effect that "the only thing that distinguishes America from an African kleptocracy" is that our corruption--by which is meant people's taking private-sector political consulting jobs after they leave political office, which might or might not even _be_ corruption--is more subtle and sophisticated than theirs.

That's what is rubbish.

Step2, if you've kept your liberal integrity while hanging out with us conservatives, I suppose I should congratulate you.

Meanwhile, the fury people feel over Blago's actions is not, I repeat not, exaggerated.

The American system in operation creates a set of uncertainties, as to whether any individual politician is dealing corruptly, failing to discharge faithfully the duties of his office, and feathering his future nest, transmuting public goods into private gain. That is, given any individual politician, there may or may not be such corruption; there is always plausible deniability. Given, furthermore, the realities of human nature and those of political economy in managerial mass democracy, this generalized uncertainty entails the certainty that there will occur many such instances of this corruption; the appearance of impropriety is the surety of many particular improprieties. And of course it is improper for politicians or bureaucrats who have had the authority to determine the extent of the regulation of some sector of the economy to retire from "public service" in order to lobby for that industry, or to seek employment therein, having amassed, during their tenures, vast knowledge of that part of the economy. Likewise, it is improper for investment bankers to assume positions at Treasury, or as confidants of the executive branch, rendering verdicts as to whether, what, and how certain things should be regulated, only to return to the sector after a term of "public service", toiling away in the very architecture they created by their decisions.

Character is a unity, and not a series of discrete moments. A man does not lose all self-interest, ego, or ambition upon the assumption of public office, and regain them, suddenly, upon relinquishing that office. Curiously, it is a venerable conservative discourse that holds mass democracy to be corrupting of the people themselves, in a manner precisely analogous to our meritocrats: by voting themselves benefits they are advancing their interests, not by dint of assiduous labour, thrift, and prudence, but by employing the instruments of power. What is mystifying to me is the desire to apply this critique to poor folk voting themselves welfare benefits and social welfare provisions, and not to meritocrats slithering up the greasy pole. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

"The American system in operation creates a set of uncertainties"

Welcome to Earth post-Adamic fall.

All kidding aside, Jeff, what you are describing is not a meritocracy, but corruption. Corruption occurs when one attempts or succeeds in short cuts that bypass legitimate avenues of merit. The Mafia, or Illinois government, is not a meritocracy.

Blago is a porn star Machiavelli; not a chaste meritocrat.

Blago is a porn star Machiavelli; not a chaste meritocrat.

It all comes down to the difference between the ideal of meritocracy and actually-existing meritocracy.

Frank, I hope you _don't_ agree that it's automatically a case of corruption for someone to take a job in the private sector as a consultant or lobbyist after having worked in the public sector as a politician with some authority over the regulation of that industry.

Maximos, no, I don't automatically think it is morally wrong to do that. Not in itself. Not obviously. Still less that it is in itself corruption. The intention or thought that one might do so might cause temptation earlier in the career. So does the desire to get re-elected. Being a politician is in itself a temptation not always to act in the public interest. About the only thing you and I agree on is that this is an argument for keeping government small. Other than that, no, a situation that makes for temptation is just life. It's not corruption in itself and not _remotely comparable_ to the actual selling of a senate seat.

To me your whole approach here sounds like you are making a comparison between a man who beats his wife insensible and a man who is in a situation where he is tempted to speak sharply to his wife. Then you ask the other person, me, to make an argument that these two things are different. It's just...nuts. Worse: Almost every word you have said downplays the evil of what Blagojevich has done. Skewed moral comparisons like this are very bad for the moral vision. You go on looking at things as being like when they are very unlike, speaking of "exaggeration" and "tongue-clucking" and "merely more vulgar" regarding unequivocally and egregiously bad acts, and eventually you blind yourself. I'm speaking very seriously here. One of the reasons I'm speaking out so loudly on this particular thread is because I wouldn't want any of our readers to think that this particular sort of quasi-leftish tendency to talk as if unlike things are like and as if egregious evils aren't so bad after all because really, somehow, people the conservatives don't criticize much do stuff that is just as bad--shallow talk one can hear on many a liberal blog--is typical of W4 or goes unchallenged here.

At least I'm on record. If there's more of it in your new thread on meritocracy (I don't know if there is, because I haven't read it) and I miss it or don't respond to it, at least it's clear that people around here do speak out about that sort of thing.

Maximos, no, I don't automatically think it is morally wrong to do that. Not in itself. Not obviously. Still less that it is in itself corruption.

Given even the few generalized instances I've cited, yes, I do believe that the presumption must be that this is illicit, because the possibilities for self-dealing are manifest. I'd really like to hear the argument that a system which entails the ever-present possibility of pols succeeding, not by dint of merit, but by the exercise of political leverage, is prima facie licit. It would be comedy gold.

The intention or thought that one might do so might cause temptation earlier in the career. So does the desire to get re-elected. Being a politician is in itself a temptation not always to act in the public interest.

The stage of a politician's career is a matter of complete indifference; the corruption can come early or late. And of course 'being a politician' is an immense temptation; but no, this is not just life, any more than my visiting a strip club is just life (something I've never done, for what it is worth). Temptation always exists, but a man striving for virtue, and a society striving for virtue in its officialdom, will remove as many temptations and opportunities to corruption as possible.

To me your whole approach here sounds like you are making a comparison between a man who beats his wife insensible and a man who is in a situation where he is tempted to speak sharply to his wife.

With all due respect, I consider this analogy not merely weak, but somewhat histrionic.

One of the reasons I'm speaking out so loudly on this particular thread is because I wouldn't want any of our readers to think that this particular sort of quasi-leftish tendency to talk as if unlike things are like and as if egregious evils aren't so bad after all because really, somehow, people the conservatives don't criticize much do stuff that is just as bad--shallow talk one can hear on many a liberal blog--is typical of W4 or goes unchallenged here.

Yes, one wouldn't want to sound like an unhinged leftist by noting that, for example, Bobby Rubin, plucked from his innovative financial labours at Goldman Sachs, was instrumental in the many Clinton-era regulatory and deregulatory decisions that contributed to the present crisis, including those that enabled Citigroup to become the vast conglomerate that it is, and followed his career of self-service-through-the-vector-of-the-public with a new career at.... Citigroup. Of course none of that was morally compromised and compromising, not at all! And of course none of the effects were destructive, either, just random forces of economic nature! One wouldn't want to be thought a leftist as a result of noting that the rich and powerful engage in astonishing levels of self-dealing. Really, this entire effort not to sound even a little like a lefty, as though lefties never originated a single valid critique, is quite precious. But as I've reiterated, I've no patience for the conservatism of aversion; it is too often reactive and negational, and as such overlooks the substance of the matters at hand. Here, that matter is that self-dealing is self-dealing, and that this opportunity of corruption should be foreclosed upon.

I consider this analogy not merely weak, but somewhat histrionic.

And the reason it isn't histrionic is because you really don't seem to realize how bad it is to do what Blago has done. You don't even want to talk about how bad it is or about the fact that you are downplaying it. You don't even seem to realize how confused and morally mushy everything you say about his actions sounds. Really, not sounds, is. (I forgot your phrase "conflict of interest" in my earlier list, along with "tongue-clucking" and "exaggerated." Yeah, that's the problem: Blago got himself involved in a _conflict of interest_.) I have no patience with the deliberate and self-conscious conflation of "tendencies of the system" with concrete, seriously morally wrong, acts by particular individuals. It's a bad, bad mental habit. It will mess you up. And it will mess up people who listen to you.

The deliberate actions of Bobby Rubin were not tendencies of the system, but volitional acts of commission and omission, and so are all such acts on the part of pols. They were concrete, morally dubious acts performed by a particular individual.

Ah, yes, morally "dubious" acts. Which, by your own admission, in many cases you are merely _conjecturing_ happened, because of the many _opportunities_ in the system, which means (according to you) that the only difference between America and an African kleptocracy is that our "corruption" is more sophisticated, that Blago's sin was being "so vulgar in his self-seeking," and so on and so forth.

Maximos, you could have written a post saying something like this: "Blagojevich has done something absolutely inexcusable. Assuming that, as seems clear, the charges are true, I hope he gets sent down the river for a long time. Without in any way implying any moral equivalency between these things, I want to talk about what I see as a problem in the way our political system is set up. People end up in situations of great temptation to self-seeking and unethical behavior, and we should seek to solve this problem." But you didn't. You wrote the post you actually wrote, the bizarre statements of which speak for themselves. My references to leftism do not arise from mere reaction based on some sort of happenstance similarity between a sensible concern of yours and something some leftists have said at some time. They arise from the fact that you said _crazy_ things in the main post and several similarly crazy things in the comments ("exaggerated expressions of outrage," etc.) and are now trying, without ever taking them back, to segue into some sort of modest-sounding discussion about whether there is some problem with political lobbyist jobs for former politicians and what we should do about that. You could have had that discussion without saying the nutty things you have said, and sticking by them. But that isn't, when it comes to criticizing "capitalism" and "corporate interests," and when making fun of people who are outraged at Democrats like Blagojevich, what you are inclined to do.

"Frank, I hope you _don't_ agree that it's automatically a case of corruption for someone to take a job in the private sector as a consultant or lobbyist after having worked in the public sector as a politician with some authority over the regulation of that industry."

Your hope is correct. In fact, I would prefer someone to be a lobbyist who has knowledge of the government agencies they intend to lobby. That only makes sense.

BTW, we all have lobbyists. If Jeff has his money in a bank, he has a lobbyist. If he uses a credit card, he has a lobbyist. If he's prolife, he has a lobbyist. If he is a citizen of a city, state, or county in the U.S.A., he has a lobbyist. The Constitution says that the people have a right to petition the government. To be against lobbyists is to be against the Constitution. Even though I voted for McCain, his biggest idiocy was his anti-lobbyist rant. Here's a senator who does not want his constituencies to hire representatives to try to persuade him that they are correct. That's a man with a serious Napoleonic complex. Now, he doesn't want the Republican Party to ask tough questions of Obama and his relationship to Blago. Apparently, governors and senators may lobby each other, and to raise questions about it is partisan and unseemly. I don't buy it. Lobbyists are like proctologists. We need them, but we'd rather not talk about what they do.

If Jeff has his money in a bank, he has a lobbyist. If he uses a credit card, he has a lobbyist...

Really, so was his banking lobbyist pushing for or against sub-primes loans? And the guy for the credit card companies, was he opposed to usury rates of 18% and against predatory schemes, or a proponent for them?

If you can identify any lobbyists representing me, please forward their names. I'd like to know why they aren't as effective as the lobbyists for say, other foreign governments.

If Jeff has his money in a bank, he has a lobbyist. If he uses a credit card, he has a lobbyist.

No I don't. The banks have lobbyists, and they often work against my interests as a depositor and creditor.

The entire meme which has it that lobbying is an unpleasant but necessary aspect of government presupposes something not in evidence, namely, that government, and government alone, is The Problem.

Lydia, you write your own posts, and I'll write mine, so long as I'm blogging here. I'm not obligated to spend 27 paragraphs chronicling the evils of, say, the Palestinians, before I suggest, timorously, that Israeli settlement policy is ethically challenged, and neither am I obligated to join in the choruses of outrage, genuine and exaggerated, over Blago before suggesting that managerial democracy is ethically challenged. This ain't obvious by the natural light, though it is apparently a conservative folkway. Perhaps if some of these contingent folkways weren't so bizarre, yet so accepted, I'd not have to devise ostensibly shocking ways of pointing towards their weirdness. And if my concerns, rooted in a sense of republican virtue, seem bizarre, crazy, or amusing - as they doubtless must, given their reception - then I'll plead guilty. Better to be crazy with Washington and Jefferson, or the anti-federalists, than to normalize the sordid truckling of K Street.

But _you_ brought up Blago. That's what your post is called. I'm not dragging him in. That's my objection--one of them: that your comparison is seriously, seriously downplaying his evil actions, and that many of the things you have said have also implied such downplaying, pretty egregiously, and that I don't think that should just be forgotten in some later gentlemanly discussion over a proposition about which we still disagree but which is a bit more respectable--the putative dangers of the politician-to-lobbyist transition.

It's not downplaying, nor is it intended as such. It is an expression of utter boredom with conventional outrages. I'm more interested in the outrages that everyone baptizes as normal.

I think your words speak for themselves. What you have said above, from the main post on through the comments, both about America and about Blagojevich, is clear enough.

"The entire meme which has it that lobbying is an unpleasant but necessary aspect of government presupposes something not in evidence, namely, that government, and government alone, is The Problem."

I don't think government is the problem alone, and I never made that claim. The problem is the consequence of a cooperative effort between a people nurtured by an egocentric culture and their elected officials.

"Really, so was his banking lobbyist pushing for or against sub-primes loans? And the guy for the credit card companies, was he opposed to usury rates of 18% and against predatory schemes, or a proponent for them?"

No one is forcing anyone to borrow money. No one is forcing anyone to possess a credit card. However, if you want to have it all for nothing, then you will be "prey."

The problem is the consequence of a cooperative effort between a people nurtured by an egocentric culture and their elected officials.

Of course, this could serve as a statement of my own position, which only serves to demonstrate how premises can underdetermine conclusions. My apologies, then, as the meme is not your view. It does seem to me, however, to be presupposed in much of the discussion of lobbying and lobbyists in some quarters.

The entire meme which has it that lobbying is an unpleasant but necessary aspect of government presupposes something not in evidence

So now lobbying the government is just plain bad? It's _not_ a necessary aspect of (self)government? I'll remember that next time I get an e-alert from HSLDA suggesting that I e-mail my elected representatives. Sheesh.

It's _not_ a necessary aspect of (self)government?

Is it not obvious by now that I am discriminating between lobbying on behalf of homeschooling groups, or the unborn, and lobbying on behalf of factional economic interests?

No one is forcing anyone to borrow money. No one is forcing anyone to possess a credit card.

In other words, lobbyists represent the interests of their institutions and not those of people like Maximos, as you erroneously claimed. Comforting to know that when the predatory lending practices and exorbinant interest rates come back to slam the credit card companies, they'll have able lobbyists drawing up another bailout. Yep, everything is working just fine.

From way back up earlier:

It is far from obvious that a pol ostensibly pursuing the "public interest" while keeping one eye fixed upon the advantages awaiting him when he retires from "public service"...is engaged in obviously moral activities.

They don't have to be obviously moral. They have to be obviously corrupt, criminal and sinful before you throw them into the same bucket with Blagojecvich. The distinction is obvious unless one sees Blago's sin as systemic, rather than as a corruption proceeding directly from his own heart. Before you know it, someone will invent a theology of liberation to free us from it all.

Well, to my mind they are obviously corrupt and immoral, inasmuch as they are transparent conflicts of interest and responsibility, and the system of truckling which presents them to pols is an ongoing solicitation to corruption. And I never so much as intimated that Blago's sin was systemic, merely that it was a species under a genus that also contains the revolving door. All discussion of the "American system" is intended to point towards this reality. Besides, decisions taken by individuals to perpetuate corrupt systems, or to engage in farcical extremes of corruption, are still individual decisions.

A theology of liberation? Umm, no, how about some boring legal and regulatory reforms, coupled with the old-school liberation theology of repentance and the sacraments?

unless one sees Blago's sin as systemic,

Five different "buyers" negotiated with Blago and none that we know, contacted law and enforcement. Yes, he is personally accountable for his own actions, yet he has an unhealthy amount of competition in the contest to be the poster-child for our current elites. Far from being an aberration, Blago is a cliche. He'll soon be upstaged by the next thug on the make in January. His dad's jarring boast that Rahm Emanuele is not "some Arab cleaning the White House floors" makes him a likely choice to do the perp walk next.

Maximos,

You say "how about some boring legal and regulatory reforms"?

I think this gets at the heart of your post and I'd like to quickly suggest that I don't think it will work. For every "reform" we seem to cook up, there are ways to counter said reform and/or unintended consequences. Here in Illinois, one of the reason Blago was so eager to sell everything but the kitchen sink before January 1, 2009, is that this is when a law against "pay to play" goes into effect. This law basically says that any contractor doing business with the state can't contribute money to state politicians. Now this law seems sensible on its face and may indeed cut down on some ethically dubious practices, but I guarantee it won't stop contractors from attempting to influence State government policy. Now they'll have to form non-profits and lobby for their preferred policies through the media or through traditional lobbying activity. But they'll still lobby and they'll still want lots of government contracts (or they'll want laws passed that are more favorable to their industry or profession). Perhaps what this suggests is that the only solution to our present situation is one you and some commentors have hinted at -- a smaller government (at all levels) and one that is expected to do a smaller number of things (and hopefully do them well).

I also hope you realize that you too can enjoy Honda, Nissan, or Toyota profits -- thanks to the global marketplace all you have to do is buy some of their stock! And I'm quite sure that there are plenty of American engineers and managers that have found rewarding employment at one of the many foreign-owned manufacturing plants here in America. The Japanese are too smart to waste an opportunity to put American know-how to use -- think of Edward Demming!

Finally, I must say a good word for "Bobby Rubin". If you can find me one scrap of evidence that Clinton-era Treasury regulations contributed to our current mess, I'd be open to your argument. But your attempt to smear Mr. Rubin is in fact very similar to lefty attempts to smear Vice-President Cheney with Halliburton -- we went to war so Cheney's stock portfolio would do well! In my other post I linked to David Frum who was quoting a longer piece by Peter Wallison -- you should read the Wallison piece as it suggests our current problems have very little to do with Wall Street and much more to do with Main Street (and Washington's attempt to expand the benefits of homeownership to all).

Kevin,

"Usury rates of 18%"...that's nothing! Try rates of around 400-500% for a payday loan...now we're talking usury! But I kid, as I reject the very notion of usury as you are using the term. The market should determine interest rates and borrowers beware.

Jeff, I understand the whole song and dance of "unintended consequences", but I consider its deployment in these contexts, well, a little perverse. While it may be true that the only sure solution to problems of corruption is a government of 'limited and enumerated powers', throwing up our hands and permitting the institution of the old-fashioned Whig system of corruption and patronage (which was justified in the Old Country be appeals to its greater efficiency, no less) won't suffice. I few moments devoted to analogical reasoning will demonstrate the inadequacy of such shrugs of indifference.

As regards engineering, the overwhelming majority of the wealth-multiplying engineering antecedent to the assembly of foreign transplants is conducted in Japan, Germany, and Korea, so no, it's not the same thing. Not at all.

Of course, the contributions of Clinton-era deregulatory hallucinations to the present crisis have been well chronicled:

As we stripped back the old regulations, we did nothing to address the new challenges posed by 21st-century markets. The most important challenge was that posed by derivatives. In 1998 the head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Brooksley Born, had called for such regulation—a concern that took on urgency after the Fed, in that same year, engineered the bailout of Long-Term Capital Management, a hedge fund whose trillion-dollar-plus failure threatened global financial markets. But Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin, his deputy, Larry Summers, and Greenspan were adamant—and successful—in their opposition. Nothing was done.

Then again, perhaps I'll be tagged with the epithet of "leftist" for quoting a chastened neoliberal, such is the state of conservative discourse.

The market should determine interest rates and borrowers beware.

Jeff,
The credit card companies set the market, borrowers are defaulting and the taxpayer will soon be picking up the tab for the banks. Something went horribly wrong. By the way, you are a member of a rapidly dwindling breed; a likeable libertarian who does not resort to the "look at those friggin'losers" motif so common to the cult. I appreciate it.

If you can find me one scrap of evidence that Clinton-era Treasury regulations contributed to our current mess, I'd be open to your argument.

Will this do?

When he was Treasury secretary during the Clinton administration, Mr. Rubin helped loosen Depression-era banking regulations that made the creation of Citigroup possible by allowing banks to expand far beyond their traditional role as lenders and permitting them to profit from a variety of financial activities. During the same period he helped beat back tighter oversight of exotic financial products, a development he had previously said he was helpless to prevent.

And since joining Citigroup in 1999 as a trusted adviser to the bank’s senior executives, Mr. Rubin, who is an economic adviser on the transition team of President-elect Barack Obama, has sat atop a bank that has been roiled by one financial miscue after another.em>
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/business/23citi.html?_r=1

Well, to my mind they are obviously corrupt and immoral

Yes, except that they aren't.

And I never so much as intimated that Blago's sin was systemic, merely that it was a species under a genus ...

What you've intimated is that Blagojevich's offense differed only in its degree of vulgarity from those who have broken no law at all. I see only two alternatives: either let Blago go, or imprison the lot of them. Since you've already found them corrupt and immoral, we can even skip a trial by jury and save the expense.

Yes, except that they aren't.

Yes, obviously, self-dealing is perfectly moral and incorrupt. How could I have been so blind to the reality that writing one's own ticket in life, as opposed to succeeding in each new endeavour on merit, is uncomplicatedly moral? That the utilization of public authority as a means of personal advancement is a noble calling? Onward and upward! The positive law defines this revolving door as legal, so fret no more!

Since you've already found them corrupt and immoral, we can even skip a trial by jury and save the expense.

You'll notice that I left out the descriptor 'criminal'....
So we've gone from my express advocacy of legal and regulatory reforms to proscribe the rituals of the revolving door to the claim that I must logically either free Blago or run thousands of summary trials. How about jail for Blago and an end to the revolving door, different species of response for different species of corruption?

No one is forcing anyone to possess a credit card.

Is it possible for people to get a good credit score (and home loans, etc.) without having a credit card and the history that goes with it? (Even if they do not use the credit card, it seems to me that in order to establish credit in this system, one has to have a credit card.)