I don’t care to comment on the brouhaha about Congressman William Jefferson, political corruption, etc. but I do have one comment to make. I am an ardent republican. And an equally ardent democrat. Note the deliberate use of lowercase. Consequently, I have a low opinion of hereditary aristocracy anywhere let alone in the United States.
It’s becoming clearer and clearer that our government is increasingly a hereditary aristocracy. Consider:
- Congressmen serve for life
The gerrymandered safe congressional districts, the enormous expense of running successful political campaigns, and the power of incumbency virtually guarantees this. 90%+ of incumbents are re-elected. Does this demonstrate that people are satisfied with their performance or merely that it’s inevitable?
- Congressmen believe that they deserve rights and privileges denied to the rest of us.
So long as a warrant was obtained as it apparently was in this case I don’t see any separation of powers issue whatever.
- Consider the case of former Congressman William Lipinski.
On his retirement his son, who had been a college professor at University of Tennessee, replaced him on the ballot.
I don’t much care whether the explanation is name recognition, branding, or “family business†I still find it irritating. Hereditary aristocracy is intrinsically corrupt.
It’s particularly galling to me here in Chicago: my alderman is the daughter of the previous alderman, the mayor is the son of a previoius mayor, the governor is the son-in-law of a powerful Chicago alderman. And, of course, the president of the United States is the son of a former president.
That both my alderman and the mayor have done good jobs doesn’t mollify me much.
I understand the gist of your gripe, but to your last statement here I have to say that it doesn’t make sense. What ought to ultimately matter, I would think, is that a good job is done – no matter who perfoms it and how she/he got there. What irks me today is when mediocre sons/daughters of famous Hollywood actors/actesses end up getting the key parts in movies time and time again, despite most everyone’s opinion that they really don’t have what it takes. But once in a while a Michael Douglas or the Bridges brothers come along to remind us that nepotism doesn’t always lead to the suboptimal in market choices. And one has to admit that the likelihood is that a politician’s progeny will tend to have much more interest in entering the political arena as a career than would an electrician’s or accountant’s. So the tendency is not all that surprising, is it? Just my 2 cents worth … but thanks for the always great postings!
Thanks, Tom2. I’ll acknowledge that opposing hereditary aristocracy is a prejudice of mine. As I noted, I believe that it’s intrinsically corrupting.
An additional issue is not unlike Joel Siegel’s rule in reviewing movie sequels: if the sequel had been made first, would a sequel to it be made? If the current incumbent had run for office without the benefit of the name, would he or she have been elected? Regardless of the job that he or she may do if the answer is “No”, that means that somebody else would have done a better job.
At the least it just raises my hackles.
Are you really saying that a hereditary aristocracy is corrupt and a democracy in the American mould isn’t? Where the winner is the party with the biggest campaign budget, major corporations own legislators body and soul, and politicians buy votes with other people’s money?
Pork may taste good, but it isn’t good for the body politic.
One advantage of a monarchy is the realisation of the ruler that if the king makes a mess, he knows his son is going to have to clean it up.
No, Ian. That’s the reason for my distinction between intrinsically corrupt and extrinsically corrupt. Perhaps I’m a dewy-eyed naif but I think that the American system is remediable—if we act soon.
And, as I said above, I’m a republican (note the lowercase), so I’ll confess that a certain proportion of my reaction is irrational prejudice.
Hereditary representatives can do a good job. Their parents might teach them how to do a good job starting at birth. If all you care about is getting the job done, then aristocrats might do fine provided you have a way to weed out the bad ones.
It really doesn’t matter how small the talent pool you draw from is, provided it’s big enough to get good people.
On the other hand, we might do well if everybody who’s qualified gets a shot at the jobs. Some ways that’s inefficient. If you’re hiring someone for a business and you get 1000 applicants, it doesn’t make sense to look at them all. If you can’t find a good one among the first 40 then something is wrong. But for the government, people want to believe that legislators actually represent them. They want the illusion that one of their peers is running things, somebody they could talk to or bring problems to. If they’re picked from a relatively small pool of qualified experts, then identifiable groups are likely to feel underrepresented. If there aren’t enough blacks, or not enough latinos, or not enough women, or not enough computer programmers or whatever, it weakens faith in the government.
So for example it’s a problem that so many legislators are lawyers. There’s a strong reason for it — a law firm that has legislators as partners can probably afford that, and if they lose an election they can go right back to the law office and pick up where they left off. You can’t do that if you’re an auto worker or a schoolteacher. But there’s something perverse about a system where the people who make the laws are professional lawyers. It isn’t right.
Government goes smoother when the mass of people have the illusion they could run for the House and win if only they were willing to make the effort. And right now too many people realise that it isn’t so, that they would have no chance whatsoever, that nobody they know would have any chance whatsoever, that they are represented by and taxed by an elite that doesn’t know them and doesn’t understand their problems.
So if things ever go so wrong that we wind up seriously revising the Constitution or writing a new one, I want so suggest we set up a third House. We have the Senate, and the House. And we’d have a Common House where the representatives are chosen by lottery among all the voters who actually voted in the last election. A 2 year term, a generous salary, and they get to veto anything the other houses agree on if they don’t like it.