ChairmanOfTheBoard wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 1:03 pm
I just don't think we need to assume the worst of most folks as the starting point.
that's an interesting point- though, what do you think of the argument that so many of our elected officials are corrupted (by self interest, money, opportunity, etc.) that they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt?
asked another way- exactly how hard is it to find a model official that has acted with integrity in this era?
i think no one is immune to the forces of special interest these days; which tells me we have a systemic issue.
I agree as to systemic issues.
I simply would suggest that "self interest, money, opportunity" are of large influence in most all areas of our society, frequently causing lapses in "integrity". I'm not so sure I'd be willing to sign on to a notion that "elected officials" are somehow worse than other segments.
Which doesn't mean that systemic factors that exacerbate this should not be addressed. Most notably the scale of capital necessary to run a competitive campaign places enormous pressure on candidates to be in constant money raising mode. Very hard to turn off that filter when looking at public interest choices one needs to make. Who do you benefit? The true public good or those who you can most easily attract $ from?
Likewise, gerrymandering places enormous incentives to take oppositional positions rather than finding effective compromises. Back to money, it's easier to get financial support in stark opposition than as a someone who finds compromise solutions.
But actual breaches of "integrity", real wrongdoing by politicians, is probably not much more prevalent than with, say, business folks or lawyers. Business decisions get made all the time on the basis of how profitable they will be in the short term, the cycle in which the business person is be evaluated and bonused. Often not to the long term benefit of the company, and sometimes to the detriment of other stakeholders, whether employees or customers or the general public. Sometimes in breach of the law.
Does this mean that all business people are "corrupted", don't "deserve the benefit of the doubt"?
Folks need to be held accountable when they transgress. In some cases this means going to jail. Sometimes it means fines and civil lawsuits. Often it means losing their jobs, their licenses, etc. When we don't hold transgressors accountable, we encourage more of the same.
The question is whether "voting" is sufficient when there are such transgressions. In Chris Collins case, I'd say no. He broke the law. The least that could be done was immediate loss of his job, not another election.
I believe Trump has broken the law...and we know it. Easy one is the campaign violation with Stormy Daniels. Emoluments sure look obvious as well. And now the campaign finance violation of asking for a foreign government to provide something of value to a campaign...multiple times, both privately and now out in the open. And certainly obstruction. I suspect we'll find out much more in due course.
But more importantly he has abused his power of office, broken his oath to the Constitution.
Is voting him out of office a year+ from now really sufficient?
I don't think so.