We seem to have been voting for the “lesser of two evils” for a long time. Back in the days of the Vietnam War and the associated political unrest, a musical group calling themselves The Fugs wrote and performed a song entitled “Wide, Wide River.” The song focused on the concept of voting for the lesser of two evils:
Two of the musical questions in the song were, “Why must we always be voting for the lesser of two evils?” and “Was George Washington the lesser of two evils.” The person with the best answer to those questions and others about politics was John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton, usually referred to as Lord Acton, who said, “Power Corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Very few can resist the temptation to abuse power, as a review of history makes obvious. Modern political systems theoretically evolved to have the “checks and balances” created in the States by the separation of powers into different branches of government. It doesn’t always work that way, however. For a close examination of the political problems in the States, see
My guess is that the political problems that have plagued us in the States are, to a greater or lesser extent, everywhere because they are embedded in human nature. What good is power, after all, if you don’t use it? The problem isn’t the use of power per se; it is the use of power for self-aggrandizement: Too often people want to be a congressional representative, senator, or president so that he or she can make more things go their way and, perhaps become even more rich and famous than they already are. The power and authority inherent in political office appeal primarily to those who will abuse that power and authority. This is not to say that some in office aren’t honest and hard working and desire the “public good.” My sense, however, is similar to Lord Acton’s: the temptation to abuse power is too great for most to resist. One of the reasons congressional representatives are elected to serve only two years instead of the six served by those in the senate, is to reduce their opportunities to give in to corruption over time.
One possible solution to the ongoing problem of political corruption would be to limit those who serve in the House and Senate to one term: “One and done….” The problem with that solution is the “learning curve” that comes with the territory. Accomplishing anything in a democratic society isn’t easy. Too many people have too many vested interests, so even bright, honest people need time to learn how to do the job of governing. Those with vested interests lobby to get more from government: more subsidies and more tax breaks. Those serving in political office need to know what’s legitimate and what is excessive. Those who hold office need to know a lot, and it often takes politicians their first term of service just to learn the details of how to do the job.
The real problem, however, is that many who run for office do so because they lust for power and desire to use the authority of political office for self-aggrandizement. Notice that there are very few (if any) poor politicians. Even those who start out that way, aren’t that way by the time they leave office. Even absolute term limits would be at best a partial solution to the problems associated with political money. My sense is that we need better laws for curbing corruption to reduce temptations. We also need to have the oath of office for those who serve include language designed to curb self-aggrandizement while in office, including special tax breaks for industries and organizations in which politicians have a vested interest.
Basically, we—the people—need to know who “owns” our politicians. This is not really a new problem. The best summary of how we got to this point is detailed in Democracy in Chains, by Nancy MacLean. Those who want political control primarily for the wealth it brings have been with us for a long time, and they have been content to make progress slowly, using a two-steps forward, one-step back approach. The problem is deep seated, and my guess is that even some of the politicians who are working toward dividing Americans into “makers and takers,” with the “makers” being the “ultra-wealthy” who own everything, and the “takers” being those who have to do actual work to earn a living. The concept goes back to the days when the rich people owned the land, and poor people did the work required to make the land productive. It is an echo of Medieval times, when the “nobles” owned the land and collected taxes, and “serfs” worked the land and paid taxes.
We have, I fear, reached the “end game,” with those who are “ultra-wealthy” being close to controlling everything. What they forget, however, is that throughout history when that point has been reached, a major revolution has occurred. The most famous are
I suspect the only way for us to avoid another round of excessive concentration of wealth in the hands of the few, followed by revolution, and picking up the pieces after a cultural war will be for us (“we the people”) to curb the greed of those who want to have full control of our economy and our politics.
