The Albany Times Union (paid access) reports that New York's Republican-controlled state Senate is investigating Governor Andrew Cuomo's pardons of paroled criminals. Pardons enable parolees to vote, and the Senate believes that, when pardoned, parolees will mostly register and vote as Democrats.
What is the link between criminality and Democratic affiliation?
Both criminals and Democrats believe in wealth redistribution, although most Democrats are not as direct as ordinary criminals. Most Democrats claim that wealth should be redistributed to others, not to themselves, but their claims often involve quid pro quo. School teachers support welfare, but they expect that welfare recipients will support higher pay for school teachers. Welfare recipients support higher pay for school teachers, but they expect that school teachers will support higher welfare benefits. A supports redistribution to B while B supports redistribution to A.
Much of the support for the 2009 bailout was likely of this nature. Wall Street provides financing for much of what the federal government does, so all special interests indirectly benefit from it. As a result, favoring redistribution to the super rich of Wall Street is equivalent to favoring redistribution to all special interests. A 2012 Huffington Post piece says that by 2012 just 23% of the public supported the bailout. That was better than three years after the massive media propaganda program in its favor. A well-known principle in public choice theory is that concentrated special interests will outmaneuver public preference.
Another difference may be that Democrats base their belief in redistribution on claims of morality. "It is only fair and moral that others should be forced to pay higher taxes to subsidize public-private partnership housing." Nevertheless, many criminals, if pressed, also will claim that it is fair that they receive spoils because they have been mistreated in the past or because others have unjustly taken the money in the first place. Left-wing Democrats even justify mass murder in communist countries on putative moral grounds. That does not differ much from a murderer who justifies his killing of individuals on some fantasized interpretation of justice.
The Times Union piece says that parolees whom Governor Cuomo has pardoned have committed repeat crimes, including rape.
The Democrats are a coalition not of the needy or deserving but of the rapacious. Parolees fit right in. They are just more direct, but in an era of crude Twitter posts and tasteless, empty-headed television news, politicians like Andrew Cuomo see little difference.
Showing posts with label Special Interests. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Special Interests. Show all posts
Monday, August 6, 2018
Wednesday, February 24, 2016
Thoughts on Professor Codevilla's "America's Ruling Class"
A friend sent me Professor Angelo M. Codevilla's excellent American Spectator article "America's Ruling Class." I recommend reading it with careful attention. Unfortunately, I’m not
sure that Professor Codevilla’s hope that a country party that represents
pro-freedom Americans is possible. The reason, as Professor Codevilla points out,
is that the potential members of a country party are diverse, spread out, and
difficult to organize. Moreover, he romanticizes the electorate, which is
more corrupt today than earlier in my lifetime.
I literally live in the country and have gone door to door in my rural
Catskills community, which has gone from Republican to Democratic over the past
40 years. A large segment of the voters is preoccupied with government
programs that secure them jobs in areas like nursing or education. An almost-as-large segment is comprised of welfare recipients who have been
attracted to Kingston, NY by subsidized, public-and-private-partnership housing
that has enriched developers at the expense of taxpayers, who are increasingly
saddled with the cost. Yet, the voters themselves are clients of the politicians, for 51% of the county works for government. In
other words, I don’t think a country party politician is electable in my part of
the country at this point.
Professor Codevilla unearths historical processes that have led to current
problems. His implicit model is of a unitary elite. There are elites,
but they are more pluralistic than he assumes. Also, he is
vague about how the unitary elite is constituted. Are they conscious that they
are a unitary elite? I don’t believe so—there is not a conscious conspiracy,
although there are a number of old boys’ clubs. He is right that education has
homogenized the elite. At the same time, I don’t believe that the most powerful
are fixated on social or religious issues.
Investment and commercial banks play a bigger role in formulating economic
policy than he says. They constitute an interest group that likely trumps the
others--especially in the economic realm. At the same time, interest groups
ranging from the professions to the pharmaceutical industry to agribusiness have
identifiable interests that collide with the socialist and anti-religious
objectives of Northeastern academics. The array of interests collaborates in
many ways, but they are also at loggerheads some of the time. The Republicans
attract diverse special interest groups, which enables them to ignore their own
rank-and-file. Thus, as Professor Codevilla suggests, the Republican Party is a me-too party that is at
war with its supporters. I agree that there has been an attack on Christianity and on freedom, but I’m not sure that every section of the elite array is
represented in those attacks. At the same time, his analysis of the role of
universities is on the money.
His analysis of why the Democratic Party is dominant is brilliant, but it
begs the question as to why no Republican who represents the majority has
stepped forward. First, I regret to say that given my small amount of experience
with politics I am not optimistic about the intelligence or morality of voters,
whom Professor Codevilla idealizes. Second, my guess is that rank-and-file
Americans have been bought with a $25,000 Social Security benefit and
Medicare. That seems to me to be selling freedom cheap, but as Professor Codevilla--along with de Tocqueville--implies, democracy leads to the impulse to enhance
one’s specialness or individuality by claiming privileges at others’ expense,
and I believe that rank-and-file Americans have been convinced that government
programs do that for them, so they identify with the elite power structure to a
greater degree than Professor Codevilla admits.
In other words, the people of the country party are as much to blame for
their loss of freedom and opportunity as their leaders are. How else did all
the political goofballs get elected? I briefly campaigned to be on the town’s
Republican committee. I got elected, but some of the people I met still give me
nightmares. When I listen to political conversations among the Democrats at the
Kingston YMCA, I get a similarly queasy feeling.
A related story is this: Two of the most conservative people in Ulster
County, a guy who runs a fruit stand and a guy who runs a newspaper, for which I wrote for several years, both went on a warpath
to defeat the Democratic county executive because he would not renew a subsidized
lease to a tourist railroad. When I suggested to them that a government subsidy
to a tourist railroad is not a particularly freedom-oriented cause, the fruit-stand
owner said that a private firm could not buy the property and run a private
tourist railroad because it costs $25 million; therefore, government needs to do
it.
Country party, maybe. Freedom oriented—I don’t think Americans know what
the word means anymore.
Professor Codevilla Responds
Dear
Mr. Langbert
Thank you for your thoughtful reading of my article.
Of course, I never suggested anything like a ruling class conspiracy. but
near uniformity based on common mentality, experience and interest is even more
solid.
Is the ruling class motivated by social issues? I suggest that it
identifies itself in those terms. Animus and disdain seldom come from
mere interest. Its common interest comes from its other defining feature -
connection with government?
Why no serious Republican opposition? Why does not the moon slip its orbit
from the earth? Just look at what the mass of Republican satellites are trying
to do to Cruz, and why they do it. They are comfortable as satellites.
You are quite correct about the country class’s corruption. Yes, the
country class is likely to take power carrying all that corruption with it.
(vide Trump)
Best wishes
Angelo Codevilla
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Henry Sidgwick on American Moral Depravity
Henry Sidgwick was a 19th century utilitarian philosopher and classical liberal. John Rawls calls his Method of Ethics the first modern academic work on moral theory. Sidgwick's writing, unlike the German idealists, is clear. His ideas are detailed and elaborate, so reading Method of Ethics is not light, but it is well worth your time. Although Sidgwick was an accomplished classicist, I don't think he does a great job on virtue ethics and Aristotle. Toward the end of his discussion of what he calls intuitionism, that is, duty based ethics (think of the Ten Commandments or Kant's dictum of practical reason that we should act as though our action is a universal law), Sidgwick recommends two universal duty-based ethical principles that are the most convincing that I have seen. The first principle involves duty toward ourselves and amounts to a statement of the importance of deferral of gratification or neutral time preference. The second principle involves duty toward others. Sidgwick calls it the benevolence principle. The principles are as follows (pp. 381-2):
1. Hereafter as such is not to be regarded neither less nor more than now...a smaller present good is not to be preferred to a greater future good (allowing for differences of certainty).
2. The good of any one individual is of no (greater) importance, from the point of view...of the Universe, than the good of any other; unless, that is, there are special grounds for believing that more good is likely to be realised in the one case than in the other...as a rational being I am bound to aim at good generally--so far as it is attainable by my efforts--not merely a particular part of it...(so that) each one is morally bound to regard the good of any other individual as much as his own, except in so far as he judges it to be less, when impartially viewed, or less certainly knowable or attainable by him.
Upon consideration of Sidgwick's two moral principles, that we should treat the future with the same respect as the present and that we should consider the good of others as much as our own unless it is less knowable or attainable than our own, that American society is morally depraved.
The first principle, deferral of gratification or neutral time preference, has been ignored by the United States government; by Keynesian economics; by the banking system; and by the Federal Reserve bank. The reckless borrowing, spending, inflation and waste in which the American economy has engaged would, in Sidgwick's view, be unconscionable. Even more so, he would view the subsidization of house construction at the expense of alternative uses and the future and the aggressive subsidization of such waste as depraved.
As well, Sidgwick's second principle has been ignored by business executives and by the government. The closing of successfully operating plants in order to reap short term stock option rewards at employees' expense; the manipulation of earnings to induce payment of bonuses and stock; the abuse of shareholders in order to reap excessive executive compensation, using spurious claims of market demand as a rationale (spurious in part because the executives cannot point to any ability with respect to which many others do not have better endowments and scrupulously avoid measurement of potential abilities with respect to recruiting; and when their firms fail they demand subsidies from the public) all evidence depravity in the planned corporate sector.
Even worse, governmental decision making is tainted with the corruption of special interest manipulation. It is laughable today to claim that the US or state governments represent the general good.
Professor Sidgwick would likely turn in his grave were he to see the ways in which the American dream has declined. (Sidgwick, again was British, not American, but he would surely have been deeply concerned with the American example.)
1. Hereafter as such is not to be regarded neither less nor more than now...a smaller present good is not to be preferred to a greater future good (allowing for differences of certainty).
2. The good of any one individual is of no (greater) importance, from the point of view...of the Universe, than the good of any other; unless, that is, there are special grounds for believing that more good is likely to be realised in the one case than in the other...as a rational being I am bound to aim at good generally--so far as it is attainable by my efforts--not merely a particular part of it...(so that) each one is morally bound to regard the good of any other individual as much as his own, except in so far as he judges it to be less, when impartially viewed, or less certainly knowable or attainable by him.
Upon consideration of Sidgwick's two moral principles, that we should treat the future with the same respect as the present and that we should consider the good of others as much as our own unless it is less knowable or attainable than our own, that American society is morally depraved.
The first principle, deferral of gratification or neutral time preference, has been ignored by the United States government; by Keynesian economics; by the banking system; and by the Federal Reserve bank. The reckless borrowing, spending, inflation and waste in which the American economy has engaged would, in Sidgwick's view, be unconscionable. Even more so, he would view the subsidization of house construction at the expense of alternative uses and the future and the aggressive subsidization of such waste as depraved.
As well, Sidgwick's second principle has been ignored by business executives and by the government. The closing of successfully operating plants in order to reap short term stock option rewards at employees' expense; the manipulation of earnings to induce payment of bonuses and stock; the abuse of shareholders in order to reap excessive executive compensation, using spurious claims of market demand as a rationale (spurious in part because the executives cannot point to any ability with respect to which many others do not have better endowments and scrupulously avoid measurement of potential abilities with respect to recruiting; and when their firms fail they demand subsidies from the public) all evidence depravity in the planned corporate sector.
Even worse, governmental decision making is tainted with the corruption of special interest manipulation. It is laughable today to claim that the US or state governments represent the general good.
Professor Sidgwick would likely turn in his grave were he to see the ways in which the American dream has declined. (Sidgwick, again was British, not American, but he would surely have been deeply concerned with the American example.)
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
William Graham Sumner on 19th Century Corporate Fraud and Government Subsidies to Business
The Progressive movement that developed in the 1890s into one of the most important political movements of the twentieth century was in large part a reaction to the development of big business and the trusts of the late nineteenth century. Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican as were the vast majority of Progressives, ultimately believed that nationalization or at least federal licensure of big business firms was necessary to ensure that trusts remained good and reasonable.
But did the very existence of trusts depend at least in part on government subsidies in the first place? This is what William Graham Sumner wrote in 1883 about corporate fraud and government subsidies to business:
"I have said something disparagingly in a previous chapter about the popular rage against combined capital, corporations, corners, selling futures, etc., etc. The popular rage is not without reason, but it is sadly misdirected and the real things which deserve attack are thriving all the time. The greatest social evil with which we have to contend is jobbery. Whatever there is in legislative charters, watering stocks, etc., etc., which is objectionable, comes under the head of jobbery. Jobbery is any scheme which aims to gain, not by the legitimate fruits of industry and enterprise, but by extorting from somebody a part of his product under guise of some pretended industrial undertaking. Of course, it is only a modification when the undertaking in question has some legitimate character, but the occasion is used to graft upon it devices for obtaining what has not been earned. Jobbery is the vice of plutocracy, and it is the especial form under which plutocracy corrupts a democratic and republican form of government. The United States is deeply afflicted with it, and the problem of civil liberty here is to conquer it. It affects everything which we really need to have done to such an extent that we have to do without public objects which we need through fear of jobbery. Our public buildings are jobs--not always, but often. They are not needed, or are costly beyond all necessity or even decent luxury. Internal improvements are jobs. They are not made because they are needed to meet needs which have been experienced. They are made to serve private ends, often incidentally the political interests of the persons who vote the appropriations. Pensions have become jobs...The California gold-miners have washed out gold, and have washed the dirt down into the rivers and on the farms below. They want the Federal Government to now clean out the rivers and restore the farms. The silver-miners found their product declining in value, and they got the Federal Government to go into the market and buy what the public did not want in order to sustain (as they hoped) the price of silver. The Federal Government is called upon to buy or hire unsalable ships, to build canals which will not pay, to furnish capital for all sorts of experiments, and to provide capital for enterprises of which private individuals will win profits. All this is called 'developing our resources' but it is, in truth, the great plan of all living on each other.
"The greatest job of all is a protective tariff. It includes the biggest log-rolling and the widest corruption of economic and political ideas...The farmers have long paid tribute to the manufacturers; now the manufacturing and other laborers are to pay tribute to the farmers. The system is made more comprehensive and complete, and we all are living on each other more and more...
"...Attention is all absorbed by the clamorous interests, the importunate petitioners, the plausible schemers, the pitiless bores. Now who is the victim? He is the Forgotten Man...."
But did the very existence of trusts depend at least in part on government subsidies in the first place? This is what William Graham Sumner wrote in 1883 about corporate fraud and government subsidies to business:
"I have said something disparagingly in a previous chapter about the popular rage against combined capital, corporations, corners, selling futures, etc., etc. The popular rage is not without reason, but it is sadly misdirected and the real things which deserve attack are thriving all the time. The greatest social evil with which we have to contend is jobbery. Whatever there is in legislative charters, watering stocks, etc., etc., which is objectionable, comes under the head of jobbery. Jobbery is any scheme which aims to gain, not by the legitimate fruits of industry and enterprise, but by extorting from somebody a part of his product under guise of some pretended industrial undertaking. Of course, it is only a modification when the undertaking in question has some legitimate character, but the occasion is used to graft upon it devices for obtaining what has not been earned. Jobbery is the vice of plutocracy, and it is the especial form under which plutocracy corrupts a democratic and republican form of government. The United States is deeply afflicted with it, and the problem of civil liberty here is to conquer it. It affects everything which we really need to have done to such an extent that we have to do without public objects which we need through fear of jobbery. Our public buildings are jobs--not always, but often. They are not needed, or are costly beyond all necessity or even decent luxury. Internal improvements are jobs. They are not made because they are needed to meet needs which have been experienced. They are made to serve private ends, often incidentally the political interests of the persons who vote the appropriations. Pensions have become jobs...The California gold-miners have washed out gold, and have washed the dirt down into the rivers and on the farms below. They want the Federal Government to now clean out the rivers and restore the farms. The silver-miners found their product declining in value, and they got the Federal Government to go into the market and buy what the public did not want in order to sustain (as they hoped) the price of silver. The Federal Government is called upon to buy or hire unsalable ships, to build canals which will not pay, to furnish capital for all sorts of experiments, and to provide capital for enterprises of which private individuals will win profits. All this is called 'developing our resources' but it is, in truth, the great plan of all living on each other.
"The greatest job of all is a protective tariff. It includes the biggest log-rolling and the widest corruption of economic and political ideas...The farmers have long paid tribute to the manufacturers; now the manufacturing and other laborers are to pay tribute to the farmers. The system is made more comprehensive and complete, and we all are living on each other more and more...
"...Attention is all absorbed by the clamorous interests, the importunate petitioners, the plausible schemers, the pitiless bores. Now who is the victim? He is the Forgotten Man...."
Friday, December 7, 2007
Following the Money in the 08 Elections
Open Secrets.org has a useful chart that reviews the 100 largest political contributers since 1989. Some of these, such as Enron, are no longer as important as they once were.
Of the top ten contributors, six are labor organizations: the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME, rank number 1), the National Education Association (5),the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (7), the Laborers Union (8), the Service Employees' International Union (9), and the Carpenters and Joiners Union (10). AT&T Corporaton is two, the National Association of Realtors is three, the American Association of Justice (formerly the Trial Lawyers' Association) is four and Goldman Sachs is six. Given the pain that the financial community has or will have caused in the next ten years, it is surprising that only Goldman is in the top ten. As well, given the limited success of labor organizations in securing their legislative goals, it is surprising that they dominate the top ten.
Taking the full 100 into account I counted the following categories:
Unions and labor organizations: 28
Large corporations: 53
Professional associations: 7
Small business associations: 7
Special and Public interests: 5
The large corporations include several leading commercial and investment banks. These include Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, American Bankers' Association, JP Morgan Chase, and Merrill Lynch. The special and public interest groups include Emily's list, a feminist lobbying group that has contributed $18.2 million and ranks number 25. According to the Emily List website:
"our grassroots network has helped elect 69 Democratic pro-choice members of Congress, 13 senators, and eight governors." AFSCME has contributed $39.1 million since 1989. No wonder state governments are booming. At the bottom of the list BP Amoco has contributed $5.7 million.
It would be interesting to know explicitly what these organizations expect from their sizable donations. Some, such as the American Medical Association or the National Education Association would seem fairly obvious. Others, such as the Carpenters and Joiners seems less so. Are they looking for additional projects? General workplace regulation? Special laws that are beneficial to carpenters?
Likewise, it would be interesting to know the degree to which the banking lobbies have pressured for the monetary expansion that has benefited banking, the stock market and the hedge industry in the past quarter century.
Of the top ten contributors, six are labor organizations: the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME, rank number 1), the National Education Association (5),the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (7), the Laborers Union (8), the Service Employees' International Union (9), and the Carpenters and Joiners Union (10). AT&T Corporaton is two, the National Association of Realtors is three, the American Association of Justice (formerly the Trial Lawyers' Association) is four and Goldman Sachs is six. Given the pain that the financial community has or will have caused in the next ten years, it is surprising that only Goldman is in the top ten. As well, given the limited success of labor organizations in securing their legislative goals, it is surprising that they dominate the top ten.
Taking the full 100 into account I counted the following categories:
Unions and labor organizations: 28
Large corporations: 53
Professional associations: 7
Small business associations: 7
Special and Public interests: 5
The large corporations include several leading commercial and investment banks. These include Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, American Bankers' Association, JP Morgan Chase, and Merrill Lynch. The special and public interest groups include Emily's list, a feminist lobbying group that has contributed $18.2 million and ranks number 25. According to the Emily List website:
"our grassroots network has helped elect 69 Democratic pro-choice members of Congress, 13 senators, and eight governors." AFSCME has contributed $39.1 million since 1989. No wonder state governments are booming. At the bottom of the list BP Amoco has contributed $5.7 million.
It would be interesting to know explicitly what these organizations expect from their sizable donations. Some, such as the American Medical Association or the National Education Association would seem fairly obvious. Others, such as the Carpenters and Joiners seems less so. Are they looking for additional projects? General workplace regulation? Special laws that are beneficial to carpenters?
Likewise, it would be interesting to know the degree to which the banking lobbies have pressured for the monetary expansion that has benefited banking, the stock market and the hedge industry in the past quarter century.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
