If you’re a Republican, skip this and scroll down to the next read. This is for Virginia Democrats looking for relevance in this session.
News flash for you: It’s not ethics. It’s jobs.
Comes Bill Sizemore, writing for the Virginian-Pilot this morning, on 19 so-called ethics reform bills-two-thirds filed by Democrats–already before the legislature.
I hate to be the only grump in the room on this one, but if you think passing legislation that says “Hey, I’m honest” reserves you a spot in the Sweet Hereafter, you’re going to be…well…disappointed.
There is a little bit of perversity to this thing called “honesty.”
Think with me on this one for a moment. How much do you trust someone who insists on emphatically telling you over and over: “Trust me. I’m honest?”
Sort of makes you want to check and make sure you still have your wallet doesn’t it?
The Virginia electorate is the same way. About the third time you say that, most voters will take a step back, and check to make sure they still have line of sight on their children.
I hate to break this news to you, but most folks assume you’re not completely honest or you wouldn’t be in politics.
And, hey, they’re okay with that. Really. They are.
They just don’t want you to be gully dirt stupid about it. Get stupid about it and they throw you out of office. And maybe into jail.
I’m not even going to bring up how oxymoronic the notion of “ethics reform” is.
I can report to you with 100% certainty, after exhaustively polling a sample of one, that Virginia voters don’t perceive a need for ethics reform. They already know how to deal with lapses.
Virginians are interested in jobs. File 19 bills on job creation and you’ll be onto something.
Trust me.
Barnie, here’s a current Episcopalian & a former insurance salesman agreeing with you.
the telling line in your commentary is that most of the electorate realizes that a politician will never divulge 100% of the truth of why & what; they understand that obfuscation is the nature of the beast.
so when i hear a voter say “oh, i voted for X because he/she is really, really honest”, I know the voter is really, really stupid & that the candidate is not really, really honest.
BKD-I think you’re dead on here. Voters don’t care about this stuff. If they did, we’d already have ethics laws with teeth and campaign contribution limits. These issues don’t move votes, neither does non-partisan redistricting. I’d agree with you that the focus should be on jobs, especially since the first thing “Bob for Jobs” is likely to do is to eliminate more jobs in the public sector than he’s ever likely to create in the private sector.
Since I cast votes for candidates from both parties over the last 18 months I felt authorized to read your article.
Jobs are a more important issue than ethics reform right now. I still think the Democratic Party missed a golden opportunity with Terry McAuliffe. He knew jobs would be the top priority from the start of his campaign and made job creation the center of his campaign. Obviously, that wasn’t enough to win the Democratic Primary. However, as your article implies, he was onto something important more than a year ago. The fact that the rest of the Democratic Party of Virginia hasn’t caught up yet is kind of sad. I still think McAuliffe was the only Democratic candidate who could have won against Bob McDonnell.
As for ethics reform - I wouldn’t dismiss it too fast. One big reason why our economy in the US (and, I believe, in most of Virginia) doesn’t create enough jobs is because of special interest inspired legislation. As a life long resident of NoVa I have seen the increase in lobbying at the Federal level first hand. I can only assume that the same garbage is going on in Richmond. In fact, I know it is.
Unfortunately, ethics in politics (like health care reform) makes a poor “issue de jour”. The topic is complex and the first goal has to be convincing people that there is a problem. This problem definition effort might take years. However, the takeover of government by special interests is a problem worth solving - even if it takes years to build a consensus in the electorate. It should not be a cause championed instead of economic development - that is a false choice. Rather, it is a cause that should be championed steadily and over time by right-minded politicians and citizens. And Democrats have more to gain from this than Republicans. One big inhibitor to a broader role for government in society is the public’s overwhelming mistrust of government. I believe much of that mistrust stems from a belief that government is fundamentally corrupted by special interests (i.e. unethical). Find a way to ease back on the public’s sense of government corruption and you find a way forward for health care reform, carbon emission reduction legislation, more spending on education, etc.
Groveton, the threshold demand for real, game-changing, meaningful reform–term limits, public campaign finance, etc.– is simply not reached yet. I don’t know if it will be. We think of “special interests” as insidious things, but the truth is they are us–all of us. Some 70% of Americans own stock in publicly traded companies–every one of which lobbies for owner advantages. Add in the private gigs, and their associations, and that number bumps up against 100% at some level. What you and I deplore as a “special interest” may well be doing a good job looking after Grandma”s nest egg. I’ve never heard a single Exxon stockholder complain about Exxon’s profits, or how much the company spends wooing legislators. It is complicated–you’re right about that–but at the end of the day, we’re the problem–you and me and Grandma. BKD
PS: Mistrust in government is a good thing.
We’re the problem to the extent that government is transparent. When government activities are conducted in secret it’s hard to blame the general public for those activities.
I also question the trajectory of lobbying. The sheer level of time and money spent lobbying governments has been increasing at an increasing rate over the past 10 - 15 years. I personally believe that this means the politicians are ceding more and more of their power to the lobbyists. The fact that we all benefit from people lobbying on our behalf may be statistically true. However, we are not all helped to an equal degree. For example, the fact that 70% of all Americans own stock in publicly traded companies does not mean that the 70% are equally benefitted by their holdings. Some people own very little stock relative to the value in their homes, CDs, etc. Wealthier people tend to have much more of their net worth and vastly more dollars invested in the equities of publicly traded companies then people of modest means. So, wealthy people benefit far more from the fruits of lobbying than average people. In fact, I would contend that the extra costs of lobbyist led anti-competitive legislation cost small time shareholders more (in over-priced living expenses) then they gain from the value of their shares.
Groveton, you are apparently the master at posting “fact” without any citation to an original source, which separates you from most bloggers.
Fact is, most bloggers offer their opinion, without any varnish claiming their assertions as fact. Barney is perhaps the most honest of all, with his focus group of one. My opinion is that Barney is correct far in excess of the percentage of time any normal human should be. But that doesn’t make it fact, until someone proves it.
Case in point — you complain about the “trajectory” of lobbying, which implies that more and more people are, in fact, lobbying, and that more and more dollars are spent in pursuit of same. You make two fatal assumptions. The first relates to the number of people “lobbying.”
I can point to many changes in federal and state laws that govern who must register as lobbyists. Those sweep in “new” people Apply those across the years, and you may find that not so many more people are lobbying, but many more people are complying.
The second is that you have not adjusted the number of “people” lobbying versus the legislative activity of state legislatures.
In any given year, some 3000 bills are introduced in VA and some 1000 get passed. That is way more than a couple decades ago.
Fact is, this world is looking for quicker and quicker answers to “problems.” Many times these “problems” are in the minds of volunteer or activist groups who want a bill to fix some perceived issue (such as the need to drive golf carts in Colonial Beach). Business (read: “special interests”), generally, doesn’t like a lot of change, although there are some exceptions to that rule (see payday lenders).
Finally, so long as the Constitution protects the right to petition the government, there will be lobbyists. If you really don;t want people to be able to organize and ask government to do what they want, there are many other forms of government to scratch that itch.
The bottom line is that we’ll never be able to legislate honesty nor mandate trust. The world would be a simpler place if we could. I think. Maybe. Maybe not. I’m not even sure that would be desirable. (I don’t have a problem with Eisenhower lying about U-2 Soviet Union overflights until a lucky shot traps him and Gary Powers into the truth.) I don’t buy the transparency issue either. The problem is not a lack of transparency in government, but in people, and what hides in the darkest crevices of their hearts. Maybe these new show-me-naked scanner gizmos in place at some airports now will help in that regard. Until then, I think Tom Jefferson, he of hypocrite fame, said it best in a letter to James Madison, dated January 30, 1787: “Love your country, but never trust its government…” BKD
Curious and Barnie:
My primary source for the increase in lobbying at the Federal level is the book by Robert Reich - Supercapitalism. I don’t have the book with me at the moment but will be happy to cross reference Mr. Reich’s sources of information. They are fully footnoted in his excellent book. I also note that Curious writes a comment critical of my lack of sources by citing facts without any sources. Interesting.
The U2 flights are a bit of a stretch, to say the least. Issues of legitimate national security should stay secret. However, the conttacts being signed by the Commonwealth of Virginia for everything except (possibly) a small number of law enforcement contracts. The Northrop - Virginia VITA contract is a case in point. Shouldn’t this be very transparent?
Quoting Thomas Jefferson is very questionable. First, he’s been dead for almost 200 years. Second, he wrote and said a lot over his long life. Many of the things he wrote and said at one point in his life conflicted with things he wrote and said at other times in his life. As a graduate of Mr. Jefferson’s University I learned enough about Mr. Jefferson to know that his life and philosophy cannot be properly represented with a single sound byte. For example:
But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789 (Richard Price had written to TJ on Oct. 26. about the harm done by religion and wrote “Would not Society be better without Such religions? Is Atheism less pernicious than Demonism?”)