Wednesday, February 1, 2012

Lying, Cheating, and Stealing in the Political System

PART 1: CORRUPTION IN CONGRESS
As promised in the first installment of this blog, we are going to examine the vast tsunami of lying, cheating, and stealing in America. 
It’s a huge topic.  All of our systems--economic, educational, political, etc.--are flooded with corruption.  Our political system is especially vulnerable to corruption, and public approval of Congress is already in single digits, so why not start there?
Members of Congress openly admit that the game is rigged.  Take the financial services industry, for example. One Senator said in a 2009 radio interview that the financial firms are “the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they, frankly, own the place.”[i]  The financial services industry spent $2.5 billion on federal campaign contributions in the period from 1990 to 2010, more than was spent by the health care, defense, agriculture, and transportation industries all combined, making our Congress today “a forum for legalized bribery.”[ii]
It takes a lot of money to run a campaign in twenty-first-century America. (More on that in Part II.) And after the elections, it takes even more money to keep the dogs in the pen.  Without a continued infusion of greenbacks, a maverick congressperson here or there might stray from the needs of those who put him or her in office and poop somewhere on the carefully manicured political lawn. To make sure that does not happen, an army has assembled: an army of lobbyists.
In 2010, there were 1,900 lobby firms in Washington, DC, with more than 11,000 lobbyists. They earned $3.5 billion that year.[iii]  According to Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren, there are 30 companies that in 2010 spent more on lobbying than they did on their taxes. (Ironically, much of that money was spent trying to reduce tax rates.)[iv]
This is all legal, or at least most of it is, so long as you don’t get caught with a bag of cash in your freezer.  But as a former chairman of the Senate Finance Committee said: “The distinction between a campaign contribution and a bribe is almost a hairline’s difference. You can hardly tell one from the other.”[v]
Possibly the best explanation of how and why all this takes place comes from the insiders. Take, for example, Jimmy Williams, a former Senate staffer and then lobbyist for the National Realtors Association. Williams came clean on the NPR show Planet Money in January 2012.  You can listen to his fascinating tale live here on the NPR podcast.
Lying, cheating and stealing  and managing other kinds of corruption have become essential skills in Congress.  Early in his career, House Speaker John Boehner was known to wander around the house floor passing out checks from the tobacco lobby.  He was finally persuaded that this did not look appropriate.  In his scathing critique, journalist Matt Taibbi said that Boehner was endowed  with all the necessary talents: “He's a five-tool insider who can lie, cheat, steal, play golf, change his mind on command and do anything else his lobbyist buddies and campaign contributors require of him to get the job done.”[vi]

Demonstrating how the experts can corrupt the Congress with consummate skill are two quasi-governmental institutions, known as Fannie and Freddie. The complex and wildly successful efforts by Fannie Mae to control its own destiny through manipulation of Congress and weak regulatory oversight have been the subject of a raft of news articles and books.  The level of control over Congress exerted by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--and their benighted allies in the housing lobby--for decades has probably never been surpassed by any other interest group.[vii] They were pathfinders who showed the rest of the business community how complete control over your legislative destiny can be arranged.  For a fee, of course.
In his book, Republic Lost, Harvard Law School Professor Lawrence Lessig argues that corruption in Congress has become so normalized that it is practiced now by otherwise decent people. The average run-of-the-mill congressional representative now actually thinks that corrupt behavior is the standard and necessary way to get things done, so long, of course, as no laws are broken. No longer do we have hidden bribery. Instead, Lessig says, we have influence peddling “transparent to all….which draws democracy away from the will of the people…We have created instead an engine of influence that seeks simply to make those most connected rich.”[viii]
Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank points to an egregious example of what Lessig describes.  Charlie Rangel, a senior New York Democrat, was censured early in 2011 by the House of Representatives for 11 ethics violations.  Less than a year later, in November of 2011, he held a $5,000-a-plate fundraiser for his reelection. The entire Democratic leadership of Congress--Pelosi, Hoyer, Clyburn and many others--attended the event.  These same leaders had pledged only a few years earlier to clean out the stables in the House.  The message of Charlie’s rapid rehabilitation, said Milbank, was: “it’s all just routine.”[ix]
A blatant kind of corruption involves government  grants, loans and contracts.  Members of Congress on the Armed Services Committees can invest in defense contractors and then help ensure that those contractors are first in line for the big contracts. This ploy is not much more sophisticated than hiding cash from bribes in your freezer a la Congressman William Jefferson.
Bribes are passe. Why play footsie with blatant criminal behavior when you can make so much more legally? As a former Tammany Hall politico once said, “There is so much honest graft in this town that [we] would be fools to go in for dishonest graft.”[x]
Making money on investments is all a matter of timing.  If you buy or sell a stock with knowledge that others do not have, you can make a lot of money when the stock rises or falls. If you play the options market, you can make big bets on a rise or fall with little cash outlay.  This works best if you have information available only to you and a few others. This is insider trading when done by brokers and bankers and corporate executives, and it is criminal activity.
On the other hand, members of Congress like former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi were free to invest in a Visa initial public offering while the Congress was considering credit card reform.
Congressman Spencer Bacchus denies that he made options investments based on confidential information gleaned from the Secretary of the Treasury in an urgent confidential briefing, but either he was much smarter than other options investors or he had access to inside information.[xi]
Insider trading by politicians is prohibited by law in Great Britain and the European Union.[xii]  But in the USA, it is legal. Congress considers itself exempt from the SEC’s insider trading rules. Martha Stewart goes to jail for insider trading and our Congressmen go to the bank for the same thing. When a few muckrakers began complaining about the practice, Congress finally started lumbering towards a small "reform."[xiii]
When they do go to the bank, people elected to Congress have a much more peasant trip than ordinary Americans.  They have an uncanny ability to make money, even in bad economic times and despite no increase in their congressional salaries. According to the Washington Post, the median wealth of House Members grew two and a half times between 1984 and 2009 while the wealth of the average American family declined slightly.[xiv] Investigator Peter Schweitzer notes that House Speaker Hastert went from  assets of $170,000 to $11,000,000 during his tenure as Speaker, and in only two years between 2004 and 2006 all members of Congress saw an astonishing increase in wealth of 84%.[xv]
At least one of our founding fathers looked down on this kind of outcome.  Thomas Jefferson wrote that “I have the consolation of having added nothing to my private fortune during my public service, and of retiring with hands as clean as they are empty.”[xvi]  Not many politicians can say that anymore.
The notorious lobbyist Jack Abramoff took corrupting Congressmen to dizzying new heights. He pushed the edge just a little bit too far, however, and wound up in prison. Emerging from prison, Abramoff authored a book explaining how easy it was to manipulate Congressmen and their staffs. All one had to do, he said, was hold out the prospect to Congressional staffers of a future job for them in the lucrative lobbyist world, and they would immediately fall all over themselves to do his bidding.[xvii]

Abramoff  briefly became a media celebrity by telling the story about how Congress really works; in 2011 he threw a huge party to celebrate his new book exposing his corrupt schemes and blowing the whistle on other lobbyists.[xviii]  Abramoff describes in gruesome detail in his book just exactly how Congressmen shake down business people who come in seeking legislative assistance.[xix]  He explained that that he, and everyone else in Washington, clearly realizes that “contributions from parties with an interest in legislation are really nothing but bribes.”[xx] It was routine, he says, for his lobbyist staff to return from meetings with Congressmen with blatant requests for contributions to the Congressman’s favorite charities and even to their reelection campaigns.[xxi]

Clearly the meter is in the red zone when it comes to lying, cheating, and stealing in Congress. Given this level of corruption, it is ironic that so many of the solutions proposed for our national problems rely on Congress to enact curative legislation, but more on that later.

Next:  Part II -- A Broken Electoral System

[i] As reported by Thomas Friedman, NY Times, Oct. 29, 2011.
[ii] Id.
[iii] Thomas Friedman and Michael Mandebaum, That Used to Be Us (2011). See also Robert G. Kaiser, So Damn Much Money: The Triumph of Lobbying and the Corrosion of American Government.
[iv] Elizabeth Warren on The Daily Show in an interview with John Stewart, January 24, 2012.
[v] Sen. Russell Long, as quoted in Friedman and Mandebaum, That Used to be Us.
[vi] Matt Taibbi, “The Crying Shame of John Boehner,”  Rolling Stone , Jan 20, 2011.
[vii] The most thorough analysis appears in the book by Gretchen Morgenson and Johua Rosner, Reckless Endangerment: How Outsized Ambition, Greed, and Corruption Led to Economic Armageddon.
[viii] Lawrence Lessig, Republic Lost (2011).
[ix] Washington Post, Nov 20, 2011. P. A 23.
[x] Schweizer, Peter, Throw them All Out, (2011). Schweitzer’s book is a virtual treatise on insider trading and other corrupt activities by members of congress who are part of the crony capitalism syndrome.
[xi] On Nov 12, 2011, 60 Minutes  aired an article on insider trading by Members of Congress. Some legal scholars argue that Congress is covered by  SEC rules prohibiting insider trading (Report by Kimberly Kindy in the Washington Post, December 1, 2011, on the testimony of Professor Donna M. Nagy).  Congresswoman Louise Slaughter has sponsored legislation to prohibit insider trading by Members of Congress.  A version of that legislation is finally under consideration by Congress today.
[xii] Schweizer, Ibid.
[xiii] USA Today, Nov 21, 2011, p. 2A.
[xiv] Peter Whoriskey, “Congress Looks Less Like the Rest of America,” Washington Post, Dec. 27, 2011.
[xv] Peter Schweizer, Throw Them All Out.
[xvi] Id.
[xvii] Jack Abramoff, Capitol Punishment, 2011.
[xvii] Washington Post, Nov 17, 2011. P. C2.
[xix] Abramoff, Capitol Punishment, p.65. Abramoff has a wonderful description of how Majority Leader Tom Delay shook down Microsoft in 1995.
[xx] Id. p.90
[xxi] Id., p. 206.


10 comments:

Anonymous said...

I was once told by a very wise person that i should never never lie so when i need to lie i would be able to!

CharlieDoe said...

Ed,
I want to comment seriously, without sarcasm, even though the subject does invite sarcasm.
We need to distinguish between good lying and bad lying.
Good lying could be like the President who advances the argument on sketchy evidence that there are weapons of mass destruction, this in order to drum up democratic support for a just war.
But bad lying could be like the preacher who admonishes us to “remember the poor,” this in order to drum up contributions to the preacher’s handsome salary.
The entire issue is a matter of the intentionality of the actor. And this is especially a problem when media (and the willing consumers of political entertainments) have made the political arena into a venue for stagecraft. And this is even more of a problem since a professional actor has become the revered model for the political actor. And this is even more of a problem since the venue for stagecraft (blogs and the like) are multiplying like rabbits.
Just how do we know a person’s intentionality?
Past behavior, is one way, but that takes a lot of research. As it is we willingly consume what the person says he is going to do – the junk food that is dished to us daily by the practitioners of stagecraft so that it tastes good.
An alternative means of assessing a candidate’s intent is less objective but maybe more in tune with how we assess friends and family (and possibly why we’re so interested in personal information about the candidate.) How we sense a person’s story is a means of sensing, if not the actor’s generalized intentionality, whether and to what extent the actor means harm to me. Certainly past behavior is a big clue to how the person’s story will unfold. But a person’s story is more than a list of behaviors, it is a means of organizing a collection of past behaviors into a coherent, re-memorable set from which we can begin to discern the other person’s disposition toward me. One especially useful feature of the story-mode of knowing a person is that it can be a means of glimpsing the unexpected.
It may just be that story-order is the only cognitive skill we have to work with because story-order is consistent with how knowledge of personality is encoded into the brain. (This is all an elaboration of mine based on Jerome Bruner’s proposition that the story-mode of knowing is like the matter of the protagonist dealing with an internal or external problem (a character flaw or a problem in the environment) and overcoming it or succumbing to it.) And so story-order gives us a means of sensing how a political agent may transform himself into a newly ordered agent…or whether the agent wants to re-order everything else.
Hmmm, this is getting too long. Ed, Maybe it would be a useful exercise to solicit examples of Good Lying and Bad Lying, cases in which we can clearly see intentionality. (Madoff springs to mind.) Or maybe we could do a group think about the most cogent behaviors we sense in our understanding of the story of Romney, Obama, et al.

Ed E. Line said...

Don't be accusing me of bad intentions you sleazy slime bag!!

Just kidding.


I have only one question for you.

What makes a lie good and what makes one bad? Are we talking utilitarianism? If so, it gets relativistic. (i.e. concepts such as right and wrong, goodness and badness, or truth and falsehood are not absolute but depend on the situation.)

My theory is more based on pragmtism and SURVIVAL. Swimming in this vast sea of lies, one needs some kind of life jacket. I was once shipwrecked with my dad. Our life jackets saved our pathetic drowning butts.

How can we find the life jackets we need to survive this Force 10 storm of lies?

CharlieDoe said...

Right, the good lie is one that doesn't harm me. My self interest is my life jacket. But to protect me from the con artist and others who would tell me only the happy sweetness that I want to hear, Ive got to have a healthy self interest. This means Ive got to be open to criticism, bad news and other forms of unpleasant truth telling. It's my job to know what is truly consistent with my self interest. And so it is my job (AND my neighbors) to help me understand how my self interest is consistent with those around me. I guess this is a Libertarian argument. But who else can tend to my self interest as diligently as me?(Competency of attending to self interest, as in addictive behavior, is a slightly different matter.) So, when it comes to persuasive speech, the task is to listen for the speaker's intent. As is often revealed in the speakers rhetoric, if the speaker is really trying to communicate with me (versus trying to "win the argument,") then I think he is on a fundamentally honest plane and not trying to override my right to self determination of my self interest. So, I guess I am proposing that critical listening is the only effective life jacket. (And I think the idea of story mode of sensing intentionality is a useful listening skill, but that doesn't seem to be as interesting to you as some other more rational form of appraising persuasive speech.) Uh oh. This blog of yours is a tar baby. I'm gettin' out of here before I have another relevant thought. (ADD is good for somethin')
My best regards to you and your readers!

Ed E. Line said...

Charlie

Critical thinking would be a good life jacket if it worked.
Unfortuntely, recent studies in neuroscience indicate that it wont work becuse we cannot take into cognition anthing that does not already line up with what we already think we know.

Gurdjieff said the same thing about 100 years ago he claimed that we do not possess consciousness but rather live in a state of a hypnotic "waking sleep".

Scientists now say that fundamentally, we human beings cannot not change our minds to fit new facts. Instead, we reduce the cognitive dissonance presented by facts that do not fit our preexisting belief system by justifying, blaming, and denying, or, in some cases, making small adjustments to explain the new facts.

Take a look t the research:

Howard Gardner, author of Changing Minds: The Art and Science of Changing Our Own and Other People's Minds (Harvard Business School Press, 2004).
Dan Ariley, Predictably Irrational, 2008.
Wray Herbert, On Second Thought, Outsmarting Your Mind’s Hard-Wired Habits. 2010
Leon Festinger, When Prophecy Fails, 1956.

Festinger gives an inside account of the increasing belief that sometimes follows the failure of a cult's prophecy. The believers met at a pre-determined place and time, believing they alone would survive the Earth's destruction at the hands of aliens. The appointed time came and passed without incident. They faced acute cognitive dissonance. Had they been the victim of a hoax? Had they donated their worldly possessions in vain? Most members chose to believe something less dissonant: the aliens had given earth a second chance, and the group was now empowered to spread the word. “The most important way people deal with cognitive dissonance is to prevent it in the first place. If someone is presented with information that is dissonant from what they already know, the easiest way to deal with this new information is to ignore it.” (http://www.beyondintractability.org/bi-essay/cognitive-dissonance.)

So don't think that the critical thinking life jacket can save you! I dont want to see you drown in the sea of lies clinging to that lead balloon.

Ed

CharlieDoe said...

Oh, Ive got experience with lead balloons, but thanks for the concern....and your prompt reply. Now I see where you are going.

Hmmm, what to argue with?

Well, there is good critical thinking and bad critical thinking. Good critical thinking would be like the scientific method -- it forces acceptance or rejection of the hypothesis. Still, I understand your concern. Perhaps a little reduction in cognitive dissonance is sometimes the best we can hope for?

Re the hopeless souls Festinger writes about: they've surrendered control of their self interest to others. That's precisely why they cannot reckon with their failed doomsday philosophy

But I'm open to suggestions for leveling the playing field. I never have understood why commercial speech has the same standing in the public arena as civic speech.

On second thought, people do change their minds about all kinds of things. I grew up with terrible prejudice about male homosexuality but have managed to change -- a transformation which I'd characterize more as a change of heart that a change of mind. But this took years of education, personal experience, frank introspection etc...

And finally, there is good facts and bad facts. Critical thinking's first task is to assess the factualness of the purported facts. That is, we should all be skeptical about the kind of facts we hear in the political arena.

Thanks again, Ed. Keep It Up!

Ed E. Line said...

Charlie--I congratulate you on changing your beliefs about homosexuality. Maybe you should have a chat with Michelle Bachman.
You are in a small minority of flexible thinkers. Most people find that they can't change any beliefs they have held since early childhood.
This is such a complex and interesting topic that I am going to devote the entire next blog installment to it.
Together with our inherent gullibility and our love of lying and being lied to and tricked, it is one of the keys to the mystery of why we are stuck swimming in an ocean of deception.
Meanwhile, your homework is to read up on the findings of Nobel winning behavioral economist, Daniel Kahneman, who has studied how the human brain handles new facts and how tough it is to change beliefs.

Charliedoe said...

Well, I don't know how flexible my thinking is. It is interesting (to me at least)that my prejudice about homosexuality just sort of dissolved as I read a tract published by the Presbyterian Church. But the racist beliefs I grew up with have been much more difficult to change. Are you familiar with the Implicit Racism Test? You can take it online. You can actually feel it in your brain when you try to change how you react to a certain face.
I'll look up Kahneman and look forward to the next installment.
Keep It Up, Ed

Ed E. Line said...

Getting back to your intentionality argument, I think the flaw in that is that a person's intentions are statistically unstable. One day he may want to tell you the truth, but the next day, he may not. I think pyschologists call this "representativeness heuristic". Kahneman researched it in 1973. Your experience with a person's good intentions mislead you into thinking that he will continue to have good intentions. Meanwhile, his intentions changed and he screws you to the wall. See the conjunction fallacy at http://less wrong.com/lw/Ji/conjunction_fallacy

CharlieD said...

Right, a person's intentionality is very much a part of what we mean by personality and character. SO when we perceive personality, we are instinctively assembling scant, random, and flawed observations into a hypothesis of how this person is disposed toward me, others, the environment.
....but something else interests me tonight. And that is that the two party system induces a kind of pathological overstatement and polarization to the political dialogue. This is, I think, because the function of the two party contest is to reduce complex problems to the binary question: For? or Against? And so weak minded proponents of a given issue can only cope with the complexity by mischaracterizing the opponent's position and false claims about the veracity and intellectual authority of one's own position. Hence, the need to win the debate versus the need to communicate.
I did look at the lesswrong blog. It looks like good stuff, but no more tonight. I'm bleary.
Keep It Up, Ed.