Historical Comment

This is something of a follow up to the political comment I made earlier about Blagojevich, alluding to machine politics in Illinois. We like to think of our leaders (at whatever level) as having our collective, as opposed to their individual, best interests at heart. But the reality is that our system is set up to promote more of the latter, and has been like that for a very long time. The irony is that it largely resulted for making the country even more democratic.

If you look at the first six presidents, they provide a good example of what we might characterize as leaders motivated by a powerful sense of public responsibility, true statesmen as opposed to politicians. They were all men of accomplishment and wealth, and certainly did not need to pursue a career in elective office to secure economic well-being nor even to insure a positive legacy in the history books. But something changed in the 1820s, with the expansion of what was called universal manhood suffrage (basically eliminating property qualifications as a condition for voting), and we saw public office transformed from a calling to public service to a path to personal gain. This didn't have to happen, but by swelling the rolls of voters with large numbers who could easily be manipulated to turn over their vote to a charlatan was just too bif a temptation, and the political machines that emerged to take advantage of the situation soon figured out just what buttons to push. Over the next few decades, if anything it became easier to "buy" votes, and once in office by virtue of such purchases, the professional pols rarely felt any compunction about taking advantage of their office to line their own pockets. Heck, they were proud of their efforts (see for example George Washington Plunkitt's memoir). When the muckraker Lincoln Steffens began a series of investigations into the widespread municipal graft across the country at the dawn of the 20th century, machine leaders welcomed him with open arms, believing that even his damning stories would have no impact on the power they wielded. Eventually, their corruption was just too brazen, and a backlash began, but in some places (like Kansas City and Chicago), elements of the machine lasted well past the second world war.

The strongest remaining element of what the machines represented-- the professional politician-- remains today, and every now and then one of them seeks to press their advantages to an extreme (as seems to be the case with Blagojevich). Most pols are satisfied to exercise their authority in ways that indirectly benefit them, but I guess the old-time shakedown is still part of the play book too (anyone remember Abscam?).

I suggested above that this all became possible because of the expansion of voting rights, and I think that's a fair observation, but I would not want to imply that we should go back to the tighter limits on who gets to vote. I just think it speaks to the responsibility of voters to really find out about who is running and make responsible informed choices. Perhaps we can't expect the politicians to be honest, but that just means we need to do a better job of vetting them and then holding them fully accountable for their actions. Otherwise, we're just the poor saps who have to foot the bill.