Very interesting take on corruptibility of politicians (crosspost)

(Thinking of A party at risk, a country at risk, by welshterrier)




Poking around some Colorado blogs this morning, and I stumble upon this from Ave Cassandra. Emphases are mine.

from, "Paul Wellstone and plane crashes"

The Twin Cities Daily Planet has a nice quote from Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer, an activist professor considering running against Norm Coleman for Paul Wellstone's old Senate seat.

"The purpose of good government should be to make sure that the benefits of the economy are dispersed widely and that taxes are invested for the common good," said Pallmeyer. "The rules of the economic game are undermining the health of our families."

Pallmeyer supports single-payer universal healthcare.

I couldn't help but think of Wellstone as I watched John Perkins on Democracy Now last week. Perkins, the author of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, talked in part about how he had viewed his work — corrupting foreign officials — as urgently necessary for the well being of those officials. If they weren't corruptible, they often died. Two South American presidents he worked with died in small plane crashes within weeks of each other after refusing Perkin's blandishments.

Perkins writes, "The book was to be dedicated to the presidents of two countries, men who had been his clients whom I respected and thought of as kindred spirits - Jaime Roldós, president of Ecuador, and Omar Torrijos, president of Panama. Both had just died in fiery crashes. Their deaths were not accidental. They were assassinated because they opposed that fraternity of corporate, government, and banking heads whose goal is global empire. We Economic Hit Men failed to bring Roldós and Torrijos around, and the other type of hit men, the CIA-sanctioned jackals who were always right behind us, stepped in."

So... I don't know about you, but it makes perfect sense to me.

Everybody complains about all politicians being liars and corporatists? If there's one thing I've learned, it's that when a behavior or attitude is that rampant, it means that on some level, it's necessary for survival. We already knew political survival, but this John Perkins makes clear that in some cases, it's literal survival.

So a certain amount of corruptibility is necessary for politicians to be in power or even to be alive at all? What a frightening-- and intriguing-- thought.
It also partly explains why the Democrats don't appear to be getting anything done.

Intriguing, yes. For what if you could simply appear to be corruptible, so as to preserve yourself; while in reality live as a man of integrity?

Because Edwards is one example of a politician who we know to be less corruptible, but is still perceived to be "bought and paid for" by many others.
The whole "he's in the pocket of the trial lawyers" stuff, the dismissal because of his good looks, even the idea that he can't be a real economic populist because he's rich and doesn't disguise that... could those, possibly, be used as protective screens for him to hide behind, while he gets the necessary stuff unseen?

American society has never been too kind to its genuine change agents, those who possess the most ambition, foresight and courage to make progress happen. Edwards has been chastised for his blatant ambition as much as for anything else. It's not always true that men get blessed for being ambitious while women don't. Sometimes, men don't either.

America talks the talk, but when it comes right down to it, doesn't really walk the walk on social change, and on the human beings responsible for it. (It really helps me, when I get frustrated, to remember that corporations are made of people, governments are made of people, and therefore have human frailties and vulnerabilities just like individuals.) In the heat of the moment, our usual split-second option has been to pursue comfort and the status quo-- and those are responses having their roots not in America but in human nature, being resistant to change and all that.
So our change agents have to often put on a protective camouflage, even make the lemons of a bad media rep into lemonade that allows them to get their tasks done with less obstruction.

It strikes me as an incredibly difficult task, appearing as if you have less integrity than you really do, so you can stay in the game and get things done under the radar. And yet, if this is in fact more necessary than I thought before, than it makes me respect and sympathize with our elected officials even more, for it opens my eyes to their humanness and just how many tightropes they really have to walk over the course of their careers.

The real insidious effect of surveillance and monitoring is in trying to force a role you play to become part of who you are. Better make sure you really do support environment-destroying corporations, instead of just pretending while secretly rewarding the wind-power companies handsomely under the table.
Some things just belong under the category of, "it's a hat you put in the morning, and take off in the evening", for the sake of true freedom-- the freedom to be oneself without harrassment or undue damage to one's prospects.

Any time a behavior persists in societies, on some level it's necessary. "Surrendered wife" behavior, as odious as it is to me (and ultimately futile for catching the men who are really worth it), sticks around because it IS closely tied to what we women think of as loveability, being supportive, and good old-fashioned getting along.

And Ave Cassandra has just shown me that secrets and roleplaying are no different; that there's a place for them, too, in the grand scheme of things.

And if that's the case, then everybody who whines about all politicians being liars... well, the joke is on them.

(crossposted)

Mind you, I am an Edwards supporter, but I don't think he is pretending to be "corruptible" to stay under the radar.

Rather, I think he is, now, this may shock some people. John Edwards is human. GASP.

I think he truly cares about poverty and the working class. I don't think he's forgotten his roots. So, he enjoys some of the luxuries his wealth can buy - nice house, etc. He indulges some of these desires. That's just human. It doesn't mean he doesn't care about those who are poor. I think he very much wants to be President and not as an ego thing or power grabbing thing, but because he thinks he can make a difference. He is perhaps, pragmatic. It takes certain things to get elected, money for example. There are few ways to amass great wealth that are universally accepted as moral.

Has fighting poverty been a lifelong cause for him? Maybe not. But, that doesn't mean it hasn't been a lifelong concern. Before we criticize him, let's take a look in the mirror. How many of us bitch about the way things are but don't take positive action for change? Some of us are active in our communities, and that's great. If you are, imagine how you would feel if some one criticized you for not doing more - because they felt your actions were not as loud as your talk.

Monte, you of all people know how I feel... 'nuff said, yeah?

I don't think he has any reason to feign anything. No, he's not perfect -- none of them are -- but considering his humanity, having his own motivations and desires... he's pretty much a WYSIWYG candidate. He doesn't play both sides - he learns from both sides. This makes him adaptable and able to hone his message to the group and situation. If that's considered pandering, then pander away.

Oh, I'm not explaining this well, but if you need clarification, you know how to contact me, ne? :hug:

He has the same charisma, the same goals (to help the less fortunate), to make a difference. This is what I see, why I support him, and he is the first candidate since Bobby Kennedy that I would support with my time, my money ... the first candidate in 30 years I can admire and respect & work hard to elect. He was my candidate in 2004 and he is still my candidate in 2008. No one even comes close to him (except maybe Richardson). Would love to see an Edwards/Richardson ticket.