Falling on Political Swords
My friend, Lance Haun over at Rehaul.com recently wrote about the Supreme Court decision lifting the ban on corporate and union donations to political candidates. Lance wonders if this ruling really changes anything given that corporations and unions already use loopholes with 527 groups. He suggests that ultimately we have the ability to fix the money in politics problem because we can do what corporations and unions cannot: vote.
Whose fault is it? Doh, it’s mine.
I am glad Lance pointed the spotlight right back at us voters on this major issue. Usually, I believe that the body politic is culpable for many of the ills of its political world. Who else voted these people into office? The demand from constituents for money and services doesn’t balance well with the concern of government overspending. We want everything for nothing.
The currency of politics
That said, I think the solution to this money in politics issue has a lot to do with politicians and less so with voters. Sure, we select the people who govern over us but these officials lack one specific trait that is keeping the money in politics problem from getting solved. They are not willing to fall on their own sword for the good of the whole. Power is the currency of politics. Money is only a means to acquire political power. Politicians who have the political power to effect change in this arena have that power because they are good at getting the money. They’re in a pickle.
Expecting a politician to cut off his or her means for acquiring political power because it would be good for the whole is like expecting Wal-Mart to stop accepting money for purchases in its stores because they’re hurting society with all of that revenue they’re generating. Uhhh…not going to happen. Likewise, when politicians are faced with doing anything that would undermine their power they just can’t do it and expect to stay in the game.
Fall on thy sword
That’s why we should be looking for politicians that truly don’t care about staying in the game. Could Wal-Mart change the world by providing health care benefits to all part-time employees, requiring suppliers to use best green manufacturing practices, forcing China to dramatically improve human rights conditions in order to be a trade and labor partner and paying middle-class wages to all of its employees? Of course it would change the world. The impact would be incredible. Then once they ran through their cash reserves they’d go out of business. President Obama recently told Diane Sawyer that he would “rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president.” Who knows where he’ll go with that but to me that looks like the beginning of willingness to fall on one’s own sword for the good of the whole. Better to do what is right and lose political currency even if it means leaving the game.