Politics - why all the corruption?

[abelisle]

Headlines in my local NYC newspaper cry out detailing the massive corruption of a local politician who represents my neighborhood. Governors, potential Presidential candidates, senators, local councilmen and just about anyone connected with them are seemingly inundated by corruption. WHY?

Is there something innate about politics that begs corruption? Is politics simply an easy conduit for facilitating these nefarious activities? I wonder what are the motivations for people who want to get into politics? Is it altruism, a desire to help and serve others before oneself? Or is it the pull of nepotism where the needs of family trumps everything else? Maybe it's the allure of fame and power, a potent package to say the least!

And as I wonder about politics, I remember that this is how I used to feel about lawyers. I could never understand how lawyers could represent either people who were obviously guilty of their crimes or organizations who exercised unethical practices. But let's get back to the motivation of potential politicians. Are there still people whose primary interest is to help their communities? And if they do exist, does there come a point in time when their good intentions are seduced by the "dark side?"

Shakespeare understood this in the examination of character vs. reputation in Macbeth. An otherwise decent, brave nobleman and warrior is brought down to the nadir of his existence by the seductive pull of his wife and the allure of kingship. The inherent implications are that humans at their core are essentially evil - a powerful Biblical archetype and that the female sex is the more sinful of the species, another cultural archetype stemming from the prelapsarian tale of Adam and Eve.

Politics has become the fertile ground for tales of true tragedy, not as mighty as Aristotle's Poetics but as real as they come. The fall from grace has become the fall from elitism ("high rank and station" as Shakespeare would say). So, the newspapers are our modern conveyors of tragedy rather than drama acted out on the stage. But they still reveal our "tragic flaws" and evoke catharsis when we sorrow for those who have fallen from such great heights. Or do we sorrow? Maybe we just smirk?

Just wonderin'

Alex

[karl]

Politics has become the fertile ground for tales of true tragedy, not as mighty as Aristotle's Poetics but as real as they come. The fall from grace has become the fall from elitism ("high rank and station" as Shakespeare would say). So, the newspapers are our modern conveyors of tragedy rather than drama acted out on the stage. But they still reveal our "tragic flaws" and evoke catharsis when we sorrow for those who have fallen from such great heights. Or do we sorrow? Maybe we just smirk?

Just wonderin'

Alex

Nobility, integrity, and industry were bound to bite the dust with the rise of socialism. Politicians know that the growing socialism in this country is nothing less than group theft. Since they are at the epicenter of this theft, why shouldn't they line their own pockets as well? Power corrupts, and socialism is an almost irresistible power beckoning to unscrupulous men.

The single greatest concentration of millionaires in one room on any given day can be found in the US Congress. It has been well known for many years that one of the easiest way to get rich is get elected to office and then sell your vote.

[abelisle]

I'm curious. What's the fascinating appeal of socialism as the raison d'etre for all things political on this forum? Is this another Adventist conspiracy thing I'm not in touch with?

I really don't think corrupt politicians are dwelling on the various aspects of socialism that lends itself to the committing of unethical practices before they engage in doing them?

Alex (trying vainly to be apolitical in a political topic )

[Gerr]

Rise of Socialism the culprit? NAY, my friend. The socialists on the left and the capitalists on the right, and I dare say even the moderates in between, are all bound by a common chain - the chain of greed/selfishness.

[Woody]

Why all the corruption?

The blame lands strictly in our laps. The laps of the voters. We wanted 'change' and we voted it in.

Personally I don't feel we got any good change. If you look at Iraq ... Obama just continued the same policies of Bush. No change there. And I am thankful for that. Transparency? No change there. Corrupution? No change there. Lies? No change there. Deception? No change there.

The only change I've seen is with government spending which has gone up five fold with this president. And our grandchildren for many generations will be paying for the interest to China.

[karl]

I'm curious. What's the fascinating appeal of socialism as the raison d'etre for all things political on this forum? Is this another Adventist conspiracy thing I'm not in touch with?

I really don't think corrupt politicians are dwelling on the various aspects of socialism that lends itself to the committing of unethical practices before they engage in doing them?

Alex (trying vainly to be apolitical in a political topic )

Socialism and integrity cannot coexist in politics. Socialism is the "redistribution of wealth" that Obama talks about.

Wealth redistribution is a euphemism for theft - in which one person or group forcefully takes money, services, or property from Bill Gates or you or groups of taxpayers and gives it to somebody else. If they use the government as their force, it is called socialism. If they use a gun to your head, it is called armed robbery. Same results either way on your end.

Theft.

Our founders did their best to prevent this. When this country was founded there was no income tax, no sales tax and no property tax. Revenue was generated through tariffs on imported goods. We had a very small government and we liked it that way. There was no redistribution of wealth. Government was not in the business of taking money from some and giving it to others.

Things have changed.

[karl]

Rise of Socialism the culprit? NAY, my friend. The socialists on the left and the capitalists on the right, and I dare say even the moderates in between, are all bound by a common chain - the chain of greed/selfishness.

Selfishness cannot be eradicated this side of heaven. Therefore, we must seek for the best way to preserve freedom in spite of selfishness. Thus the free market. You make it or you don't depending on your own initiative and work. This was spectacularly successful in this country and resulted in our meteoric rise to success in the world.

In the US we are now witnessing the slow murder of limited government and free enterprise by socialism, social planners, social disgraces, social entitlements, social welfare.

The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money. When this happens, you have to revert to free enterprise or collapse under the weight of all the non-producers. Why not extricate ourselves from the socialist drain on our country and go back to free enterprise before we collapse financially? (I'll admit it may be too late, but free-wheel spending is just compounding the problems and hastening our demise.)

People who are being "taken care of" by society rarely think about the cost or the impact of their dependency on the culture around them. Unless they have the motivation that they are going to be hungry and out on the street if they don't work, many of them will simply find a way not to. They will also vote for those who promise more handouts.

It is those of us who still work that must start voting for smaller government and the curtailment of welfare (socialism) on all levels - personal, business, and national.

[aldona]

Maybe we Aussies are unduly cynical...maybe we are just realistic...but we (as a nation) assume it is a given that all politicians, of all parties and persuasions, are corrupt until proven otherwise. And often if "proven" otherwise we still assume they are corrupt, because any information to the contrary is seen as "spin".

It is really funny to watch the faith placed by our US friends in their politicians and the seemingly genuine disappointment and disillusionment that sets in if one of their number is pointed out as being corrupt.

Our response would be to shrug our shoulders, say to ourselves "duh...what did they expect? He/she is a politician!" and go back to doing more important stuff.

Any time a person who has been active doing actual work in the community changes their career path and goes into politics, they are immediately branded as a sell-out even before they lift a finger or open their mouth.

I firmly stand by my traditional Aussie cynical belief that there is no such thing as an honest politician, because there is no way an honest and principled man/woman can make it to the top in politics and retain their ethics.

aldona

[phkrause]

Maybe we Aussies are unduly cynical...maybe we are just realistic...but we (as a nation) assume it is a given that all politicians, of all parties and persuasions, are corrupt until proven otherwise. And often if "proven" otherwise we still assume they are corrupt, because any information to the contrary is seen as "spin".

It is really funny to watch the faith placed by our US friends in their politicians and the seemingly genuine disappointment and disillusionment that sets in if one of their number is pointed out as being corrupt.

Our response would be to shrug our shoulders, say to ourselves "duh...what did they expect? He/she is a politician!" and go back to doing more important stuff.

Any time a person who has been active doing actual work in the community changes their career path and goes into politics, they are immediately branded as a sell-out even before they lift a finger or open their mouth.

I firmly stand by my traditional Aussie cynical belief that there is no such thing as an honest politician, because there is no way an honest and principled man/woman can make it to the top in politics and retain their ethics.

aldona

Excellent post aldona, excellent and right to the corrupt point. This has been my thought for over 40 years.

And Karl corrupt government didn't start with socialism and didn't just begin, no no no, this started with capitalism. This is what this country has always had as far back as I remember. And the first corrupt politician that I remember was LBJ. And than was the worst of the worst, Richard Millhouse Nixon. I would leave Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter out of the list, they got themselves into trouble by being to honest. The rest since LBJ are all corrupt, excluding the two I just mentioned. And that doesn't even include the morally corrupt. That's a whole different catagory. As far as Obama that still debatable, we will see. But I definitely agree with aldona.

pk

[there buster]

The more money the government spends, the more it's worth to influence those who do the spending. If you want to reduce corruption, reduce the amount of money that government spends. The most heavily taxed state is New Jersey. Google "new jersey political corruption" and you'll see just how many NJ pols got caught in the last year.

[phkrause]

The more money the government spends, the more it's worth to influence those who do the spending. If you want to reduce corruption, reduce the amount of money that government spends. The most heavily taxed state is New Jersey. Google "new jersey political corruption" and you'll see just how many NJ pols got caught in the last year.

I disagree with that. I do agree that the government spends to much. But Its the amount of money being allowed in outside sources to politicians! And now they've opened up the door to even greater corruption.

pk

[Gerr]

Quote:

Socialism and integrity cannot coexist in politics. Socialism is the "redistribution of wealth" that Obama talks about.

If you read the first few chapters of Acts, you will find that the early church practised socialism. So to say that socialism and integrity cannot coexist is another unwarranted absolutist thinking, IMHO.

Quote:

Wealth redistribution is a euphemism for theft - in which one person or group forcefully takes money, services, or property from Bill Gates or you or groups of taxpayers and gives it to somebody else. If they use the government as their force, it is called socialism. If they use a gun to your head, it is called armed robbery. Same results either way on your end.

If not for the capitalists with their insatiable greed in Christian countries in years gone by, and the neglect of the poor by the rich, I doubt that anyone would have ever heard of socialism. Why do many governments want to redistribute wealth? Because when wealth is concentrated in the hands of the few and the masses in abject poverty, it makes a volatile mixture and a very unstable gov't. We are fortunate that we have a large middle class that acts as a buffer between the rich and the poor in this country.

Quote:

Theft.

I suggest you meditate on the 8th commandment. Theft is not just taking what belongs to another without permission. It is also withholding from the laboring man what is his due. There are companies that make billions and yet do not pay their employees a living wage. They have to get help usually from the state who has to tax the rich to pay for such services. The Wall St. robber barons who pay themselves billions plus billions more in bonuses even while the investors are bleeding to death.

Quote:

Our founders did their best to prevent this. When this country was founded there was no income tax, no sales tax and no property tax. Revenue was generated through tariffs on imported goods. We had a very small government and we liked it that way. There was no redistribution of wealth. Government was not in the business of taking money from some and giving it to others.

Things have changed.

And many of the changes were for the better too. If gov't revenue is obtained solely from imported goods, people would stop buying them except for the absolute necessities that could not be produced nationally. And if the other countries did the same, international business would grind to a halt.

[Gerr]

Why all the corruption?

The blame lands strictly in our laps. The laps of the voters. We wanted 'change' and we voted it in.

There was a lot of corruption even before this last election and even beyond.

[phkrause]

Very good points Gerry, I agree with each one of them.

pk

[GreatLakesGramma]

Maybe we Aussies are unduly cynical...maybe we are just realistic...but we (as a nation) assume it is a given that all politicians, of all parties and persuasions, are corrupt until proven otherwise. And often if "proven" otherwise we still assume they are corrupt, because any information to the contrary is seen as "spin".

aldona

There are plenty of us Americans that believe the same thing.

[karl]

Hi Gerry.

Socialism doesn't work on any long-term basis. This is a historical fact.

If you read the first few chapters of Acts, you will find that the early church practised socialism. So to say that socialism and integrity cannot coexist is another unwarranted absolutist thinking, IMHO.

No, they practiced communism, which only works if selfishness is non-existent. They recorded at least one problem in Ananias and Saphira, which was immediately and permanently stamped out by God. The US does not have this luxury. We need a system that works even when people are selfish.

If not for the capitalists with their insatiable greed in Christian countries in years gone by, and the neglect of the poor by the rich, I doubt that anyone would have ever heard of socialism.

Nope. This would be a worthwhile study for every liberal who frequents ClubAdventist. History gets repeated because men refuse to learn from it. Socialism had not only been heard of before the US was a nation, it was tried here. It almost ended this great nation before it got started. Socialism was practiced in Jamestown and resulted in starvation and death. The laborers were required to put the fruits of their labor into the common store and were allowed to draw from the store according to their need. Sounds great, doesn't it? It isn't.

Phillip A. Bruce, a late 19th century US historian, wrote of the Jamestown immigrants, “The settlers did not have even a modified interest in the soil … . Everything produced by them went into the store, in which they had no proprietorship.” The result as Bruce wrote would be what anyone who has any knowledge of human nature would expect, men, even the most energetic, refused to work.

This is what happened in Mao's China and in Soviet Russia on a grand scale. In America a few hundred deaths stopped the socialist experiment, in China and Russia, millions had to die before these nations abandoned the principles of Marx, Lenin, and Mao.

Jamestown changed course just two years later in 1611 with arrival of the ‘high marshall' Sir Thomas Dale from the UK. He understood the problem, freed the settlers by abrogating communal ownership. Each man received three acres of land and, other than a lump sum tax of 2 ½ barrels of corn, did not have to contribute anything to the common pool. The colony immediately began to prosper.

Why do many governments want to redistribute wealth? Because when wealth is concentrated in the hands of the few and the masses in abject poverty, it makes a volatile mixture and a very unstable gov't. We are fortunate that we have a large middle class that acts as a buffer between the rich and the poor in this country.

The middle class is always the victim of socialism. The rich simply buy the bureaucrats.

I suggest you meditate on the 8th commandment. Theft is not just taking what belongs to another without permission. It is also withholding from the laboring man what is his due. There are companies that make billions and yet do not pay their employees a living wage. They have to get help usually from the state who has to tax the rich to pay for such services. The Wall St. robber barons who pay themselves billions plus billions more in bonuses even while the investors are bleeding to death.

You think government is going to save you from Wall Street? Wall Street WANTS socialism. It is the ultimate monopoly.

The Bible clearly states that the laborer is worthy of his due. The government that insures this the best is one with free market capitalism. With freedom, the worker has mobility and options. With socialism, he must do what the government tells him to do and for the amount the government tells him he can have. And the entire populace becomes more and more demoralized. This has happened repeatedly throughout the world in the past 100 years. Each country that goes socialist goes downhill until they use up all their capital and then move back toward capitalism. That is the only way to give incentive to productivity. To the extent that you rob productive people of the fruits of their labor, and to the extent that you reward their lazy neighbors for sloth, you shoot the productivity of your country in the head.

And many of the changes were for the better too. If gov't revenue is obtained solely from imported goods, people would stop buying them except for the absolute necessities that could not be produced nationally. And if the other countries did the same, international business would grind to a halt.

You don't even have any curiosity as to why tariffs worked so well? Don't you want to know why business did NOT grind to a halt in the US when tariffs on imported goods were the ONLY source of income for the government?

There's a good discussion of it here: http://www.nber.org/reporter/summer06/irwin.html

[Tom Wetmore]

As pointed out earlier, greed is the lowest common denominator that corrupts in politics. Second only to sexual sin, it is the most pervasive vice known to man.

The reason socialism tends to falter and fail in politics is that greed is its undoing. They are mutually incompatibly.

The reason our democracy has survived and thrived for so long is that it is based, not on conservative/liberal, Republican/Democrat, but Capitalism which is the sanctified form of greed. Capitalism, Greed, Politics - the unholy trinity, the heart and soul of which is greed, that will be our undoing in the end.

And it seems to me that those who rail against socialism as if it is the philosophy of the devil, are most enamored with that beastly and unholy trinity...

[karl]

As pointed out earlier, greed is the lowest common denominator that corrupts in politics. Second only to sexual sin, it is the most pervasive vice known to man.

The reason socialism tends to falter and fail in politics is that greed is its undoing. They are mutually incompatibly.

The reason our democracy has survived and thrived for so long is that it is based, not on conservative/liberal, Republican/Democrat, but Capitalism which is the sanctified form of greed. Capitalism, Greed, Politics - the unholy trinity, the heart and soul of which is greed, that will be our undoing in the end.

And it seems to me that those who rail against socialism as if it is the philosophy of the devil, are most enamored with that beastly and unholy trinity...

Yes, thank you so much for that non-judgmental viewpoint.

Tom, how do you see socialism coexisting with liberty? Does liberty of conscience have any correlation to liberty of commerce? A government big enough to give you what you want is big enough to take what you have (it must take it from someone, why not you?) It is also big enough to force you to honor Sunday in order to regulate commerce. If you are not free in your property, how do you propose to be free in your conscience for long? Run?

Government is a parasite. It produces nothing. It is best kept to a minimum of function. We have a slim chance to get back our liberty here in the US, but not if working, responsible people are buying the lie that socialism works. It doesn't because of human greed, as you have pointed out above.

How can anyone possibly think that government is better at deciding, say, what to teach his children than he is? What kind of health care he should have access to? What kind of food he should eat? What kind of car he should drive? Those are just a few of the things that bureaucrats in the government, right now, want to decide for all of us. Bureaucrats are people with far less concern about our needs than we have.

How can people, except maybe lazy bums, even suggest that government should have increased power over their lives?

Maybe they're thinking it won't be their lives, but someone else's that will be most traumatized by socialism. The rich, maybe. Yeah, those stinkin rich people. Let's get 'em.

Here is a maxim: Whatever liberty we deny others will ultimately be denied us. Think of it as karma, if you want.

"Socialism only works in two places: Heaven, where they don't need it, and hell, where they already have it." -Ronald Reagan

[CyberGuy]

As the saying goes

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Just be thankful we are powerless. It is easier to save our immortal souls that way.

[phkrause]

As the saying goes

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Just be thankful we are powerless. It is easier to save our immortal souls that way.

Good point CyberGuy.

pk

[Gerr]

Quote:

Government is a parasite. It produces nothing. It is best kept to a minimum of function. We have a slim chance to get back our liberty here in the US, but not if working, responsible people are buying the lie that socialism works. It doesn't because of human greed, as you have pointed out above.

While I have the greatest respect for many of your posts in the theology section, I can't say the same for what you have just said.

What kind of roads and bridges would we have today without government?

What kind of security would we have had from Hitler & the former USSR and the terrorists of today without the gov't?

Quote:

How can anyone possibly think that government is better at deciding, say, what to teach his children than he is? What kind of health care he should have access to?

Granted there are some things the gov't should not control. However, without the regulatory powers of the gov't, how confident would you be about the qualification of your doctor? Your school teachers? Your lawyer? Nurses? Electrician? Plumber? Without the gov't to enforce the constitution, much of the country would probably still hanging blacks for merely insulting a white person!

Quote:

What kind of food he should eat?

Again, without gov't regulation, you or someone near and dear to you may be dead by now for all the toxic products that the food industry would have no qualms selling you.

Quote:

What kind of car he should drive? Those are just a few of the things that bureaucrats in the government, right now, want to decide for all of us. Bureaucrats are people with far less concern about our needs than we have.

Again, without gov't, S. Cal and most places would be breathing smog that you could slice with a knife. Would Detroit have voluntarily cut down emission? Dream on. Does industry in general care about the air we breathe? The water we drink? Would fishermen care whether they have just killed the last whale? Fished the last tuna?

Quote:

How can people, except maybe lazy bums, even suggest that government should have increased power over their lives?

Are you saying all the poor people are lazy bums? If so, you are insulting millions of poor people. Insulting millions who have worked hard and are now dependent on SS. Insult millions who have no misfortune other than not being smart enough to be college material, and whose jobs have now migrated to China, Mexico, etc. Where is that Christian compassion that is supposed to be shown towards the less fortunate? Having said that, I also believe what Paul said, that those able to work who do not work are not to eat either.

Quote:

Maybe they're thinking it won't be their lives, but someone else's that will be most traumatized by socialism. The rich, maybe. Yeah, those stinkin rich people. Let's get 'em.

Here is a maxim: Whatever liberty we deny others will ultimately be denied us. Think of it as karma, if you want.

"Socialism only works in two places: Heaven, where they don't need it, and hell, where they already have it." -Ronald Reagan

I am no more for socialism than I am for heartless, unprincipled capitalism.

[karl]

"Socialism only works in two places: Heaven, where they don't need it, and hell, where they already have it." -Ronald Reagan

I am no more for socialism than I am for heartless, unprincipled capitalism.

[The Searcher]

Dear Friends,

You know it is interesting that God, when He set up the government for the people of Israel, did not create a strong central government. As He warned the Israelites, a strong central government would tend to lead them from God. This is because sinful man will grow to depend upon the false security of a strong government. Paul declares that governments were established by God and were given the power of the sword. In other words, government was to protect the people from those without who would come in to devastate and destroy, and from those within who would rob and kill the innocent. But they were never given the power to determine the social welfare of the people; God took that responsibility to Himself and through His people. This was never to be the responsibility of the central government. God knew sinful man well.

Wherever socialism has been tried, it has failed because people come to depend upon the government rather than upon the work of their hands and upon God. Our founding fathers understood this very clearly when they created the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. In the Declaration we read a totally new concept of governance. "We hold these truths to be self-evident. That all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; That among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Governments are established among men to secure (safeguard) these rights." When government tries to assume the right to grant these rights or curb these rights then man looses liberty. The founders understood that man was sinful, so they tried to limit the central government's power to the minimum: National Defense, National Postal System, National Coinage, Interstate Highway system, National Representation with other nations, and a National Judiciary. All other powers belong to the state or with the people. Our present government has gone way beyond these stated powers. This began with men such as President Theodore Roosevelt when he tried to regulate companies; this was not a Federal Right. It was the state's right. Woodrow Wilson was the author of the idea that the Constitution was a living document thus allowing him to put forward powers which were never a part of the Federal government's original power. Franklin Roosevelt further increased Federal power with his programs to create safety nets and social programs. And the process has continued with both Republicans and Democrats trying to buy the votes by creating more social programs, none of them being within the purview of the Constitution. The result being people who depend more upon government than upon God; people who see the Federal government as their safety net. Much more corruption with our federal officials as clearly seen with the health care debate and bill where senators and representatives votes were bought with sweetheart deals such as the millions given to Londreau of Louisiana for her vote. And spending out of control without taking any responsibility and a tax system which is morally wrong.

God never intended for government to take care of the poor, the widow, or the orphan. It has always been the purview of the individual citizen especially the immediate family to take care of these needs. He knew that centralized giving would increase corruption with less money going to those in need. Rather, when the giving is at the local level, then the more specific needs are met, and corruption is kept to a minimum. Let us never forget that man is sinful. Power corrupts. Therefore, the less power in government the less the chance for corruption. Just look at the kings of Judah and Israel and what the consequences were when the king followed or turned away from God. We now have a government which is trying to limit the influence of Christianity; this is because Christianity condemns the current morality in government.

One thing that must be understood very clearly, true Christianity brings freedom. The United States and its Declaration and Constitution were the ultimate result of the Reformation. As Christianity grows and as its principles are followed, freedom is the natural result. Satan is doing everything he can to limit Christianity's influence in order to carry forward his agenda of enslavement. As I observe the current direction of the government, I see a rebellion against the principles of God, and the result will be subjugation to the central government with the government determining the rights of the individual. The rights will no longer be guaranteed as given by God, rather, sinful man will determine the rights as he perceives them. As I look at the present situation in Washington, I can see the work of changing the US from a Christian nation to a nation which will legislate Sunday laws and bring death to any who oppose its power. We are further along than we think. EGW said the movements in the last days would be rapid ones.

Sincerely,

The Seeker

[Gerr]

May I remind you there is a spectrum of socialist countries as there are capitalists, each with varying degrees of freedom. Cuba is in one extreme. Extreme socialism and extreme capitalism are both toxic. Somewhere in the middle would probably be healthier.

[Gerr]

Quote:

God never intended for government to take care of the poor, the widow, or the orphan. It has always been the purview of the individual citizen especially the immediate family to take care of these needs.

And if the poor, the widow, or orphan are neglected by the citizens? Who then will step in to do the job?

Quote:

We now have a government which is trying to limit the influence of Christianity; this is because Christianity condemns the current morality in government.

What I see in gov't is that many of the conservative politicians who have been preaching more morality in gov't have themselves been guilty of the very same evil they have been railing against! That Republican senator from Nevada. Gov. Sanford in SC. Lott from TN. Armey of TX. The list goes on and on.