In his Wall Street Journal column Holman Jenkins attributes the manifest low moral character of New York politicians to one-party rule:
Unmentioned is how New York’s one-note political culture brings exactly this result on itself. There are no complexities, no ambiguities, no conflicting views to consider or conciliate. Just adopt the catechism and go. This is the formula for a career in New York politics. As the paper’s editorial page demonstrates on a daily basis, hardly is there even a limit on the amount of self-righteousness that will be tolerated as long as you internalize the correct checklist of things to be self-righteous about.
It’s an environment abnormally conducive to persons who lack real political instincts, talents and convictions, who make their way by being more loudly conformist than the next guy. Mr. Schneiderman tweeted Monday that, while he never assaulted anyone, “in the privacy of intimate relationships, I have engaged in role-playing.†Where do we get such men? Their role-playing, paint-by-numbers political careers are a product of New York’s warped one-party politics.
I think he’s giving too much credit to Republicans and to the two party system. Yesterday I mentioned that four of the last eight Illinois governors (three Democrats, one Republican) have done time in prison after serving their terms of office as governor and two of the last four (one Democrat, one Republican).
I don’t believe that the low character of politicians in New York or in Illinois is due to one party rule. I think it’s due to re-electing professional politicians for purely partisan or ideological reasons time after time after time. When you elect people because they’re on your side rather than because they’re the right sort of people or, worse, you infer that they’re the right sort of people because of their partisan or ideological affiliations, you’ll inevitably wind up with a bunch of self-serving moral midgets in office.
Now how should one integrate the current President into the argument. President Trump is from New York; his character leaves a lot to be desired; yet he is neither a Democrat or a career politician.
Two observations :
people gain their moral compass from the surrounding culture (ie peers and media).
Second, politicians are rarely sui genesis; usually they arise from a farm system. Municipal or state legislature then to state wide office then federal office.
I think that we can reasonably conclude that state-level politics both in New York and Illinois are corrupt and immoral milieux. Is the additional conclusion to be drawn that the states themselves are corrupt and immoral? Or that power corrupts?
For good or ill that isn’t as true as it used to be. The present governor of Illinois never held elective office before running for governor. The man who’s runnning as a Democrat to succeed him has never held elective office. Donald Trump never held elective office before running for president. Hillary Clinton never held elective office before running for senator in 2000.
Well Donald Trump is sui genesis; My point is one ought to look at municipal or state legislature cultures as a contributing factor.
The systems being what they are, is it even possible to reach high office in Illinois or New York without engaging in corruption? It seems to me that the current political systems will weed out any politicians who aren’t willing to play the game.
As noted above the sitting governor in Illinois is a first-time holder of elective office. He largely self-financed his campaign. My point is not that he’s not corrupt; I honestly don’t know. I’m simply noting that if he could get himself elected going around the system someone else could, too, so, yes, it’s possible to reach high office in Illinois without engaging in corruption.