John Edwards, Standing up to corruption, cronyism and modern day money changers.

Reposted from John Edwards blog

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/9/16/42429/6551

Republican and Democratic Political Machines: undemocratic and unfair

user icon Karita Hummer in Arguments & Analyses Feed of
9/16/2007 at 4:38 PM EST

John Edwards, Standing up to corruption, cronyism and modern day money changers.

Among the most inspiring elements in the John Edwards campaign is his insistence on the reigning in of Lobbyist influence and putting the brakes on corruption, cronyism and insider influence and unfair bottom line practices by some corporations to the detriment of the common good (such as outsourcing, tax shelters, unfair loans. bankruptcy, pollution, etc..)

When I heard him speak last December in Santa Clara, before he declared his candidacy, John Edwards rightly said that it wouldn't due to trade unfair Republican election practices with Democratic election practices that kept the status quo. In other words, in all things, be as principled in our own matters as we expect of the Republicans in theirs.

The corruption, cronyism and rampant favoritism to certain corporations in the Bush Administration is almost without parallel in the history of our national politics. The Bush/Cheney/Rovian political machine has been incomparably efficient in only two areas, putting cronies in place and keeping Republican criticism and nay defection to a bare minimum, and they have been mean-spirited and ruthless. It's as if the ghost of old Tammany Hall (New York City) descended in the White House and took hold throughout government on a national level.

But, if we really want reform, if we really want the common good to be the new bottom line for America, like John Edwards says, we can not trade their corrupt machine for ours. We must rid the Democratic Party of its own tendencies toward machine politics, corruption, cronyism, and the money changers in our government - including no nights in the Lincoln Bedroom for high rollers orchestrated by Republican or Democratic machines.

Enough is enough - of the lobbyists and campaign finance high rollers/money changers in our government. Squeaky clean, fair and transparent is the way to go.

This is how Wikipedia describes a political machine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_m achine

"A political machine is an unofficial system of a political organization based on patronage, the spoils system, "behind-the-scenes" control, and longstanding political ties within the structure of a representative democracy. Machines sometimes have a boss, and always have a long-term corps of dedicated workers who depend on the patronage generated by government contracts and jobs. Machine politics has existed in many United States cities, especially between about 1875 and 1950, but continuing in some cases down to the present day. It is also common (under the name clientelism or political clientelism) in Latin America, especially in rural areas, and also in some African states and other emerging democracies, like postcommunist Eastern European countries. Japan's Liberal Democratic Party is often cited as another political machine, maintaining power in suburban and rural areas through its control of farm bureaus and road construction agencies. (American Journey, 2005)

The key to a political machine is patronage: holding public office implies the ability to do favors (and also the ability to profit from graft). Political machines generally steer away from issue-based politics, favoring a quid pro quo (something for something) with certain aspects of a barter economy or gift economy: the patron or "boss" does favors for the constituents, who then vote as they are told to. Sometimes this system of favors is supplemented by threats of violence or harassment toward those who attempt to step outside of it."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_m achine

While political machine approaches do have their admirers (it gets work done efficiently, so some say), by and large, the systems are stifling, reduce creativity and increase a sense of dis-empowerment in the governed. Such systems are usually antithetical to participatory democracy.

I grew up as a child in Pittsburgh,PA. Machine politics was part and parcel of the political fare for the community. It felt oppressive and authoritarian and corrupt. It wasn't until Pete Flaherty was elected Mayor of Pittsburgh, PA, in 1969 did one feel a sense of real citizen empowerment and potential.

And get this, about Pete Flaherty, now deceased, who stood up to the Democratic machine of the city of that era:

"Mr. Flaherty, though outspent by a margin of more than 4 to 1, nonetheless cruised to a landslide victory in the 1969 election, launching an administration that would permanently transform Pittsburgh government." By James O'Toole, "Obituary: Pete Flaherty dies at 80, Former mayor and county commissioner", Tuesday, April 19, 2005
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05109/490 421.stm

So, did you catch that number, outspent by a margin of 4 to 1. (OK, everyone, remember those numbers and take heart!)

So, what am I getting at. I guess it's quite obvious that I am concerned about the seemingly machine like approach to Hillary Clinton's campaign, which would seem to translate in to the type of governance one could expect from her (if she could even get elected which I highly do doubt). The feeling I have about this is based on her attitude toward lobbyist campaign money and other high roller money (even from Murdoch), her seeming inability listen to people and her sense of entitlement to the presidency, based on her insider status.
Altogether, it gives me a feeling of authoritarianism and elitism, that feels antithetical to our best principles in the Party.

We don't need Machine Politics, from either the Republicans or the Democrats. We do need a Democrat who can stand up to the corrupting influences in our government today and say, "No, we aren't going to do business that way anymore. We are going to have a new bottom line, which is the common good - and there is no compromising on that."

That Democrat is John Edwards.

Defense of Lobbyists is old politics and throwing the money changers out is new politics. We need reform for our Country and reform for our Party. The old way doesn't work.

Karita Hummer
San Jose, CA