So it took me 30 minutes, but I finally figured out how to do this. (I'm not sure I could find my way back to the "new blog" screen on a bet though.)
As I was finishing up my reading in the Ricci text, I "flagged" a certain page because it reminded me a lot of an article I read in the New York Times a couple of days ago. After a bit of research, I found this particular article in the archives. It is a few days old and “old news” for most of you, but it reads as follows:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22donate.html?scp=2&sq=lobbyist%20money&st=Search
It is discussing the recent Supreme Court ruling rejecting the corporate spending limit, which, according to the article (and to which I tend to agree), ". . . will also increase the power of organized interest groups at the expense of candidates and political parties" (Kirkpatrick, 2010).
One line of this article in particular struck me as related to an example presented in Ricci’s section of Chapter 6 called “The Call for Substantive Rationality”. This line discusses how lobbyists now have more of an ability to tell lawmakers, “We have got a million we can spend advertising for you or against you — whichever one you want…’” (Kirkpatrick, 2010).
On page 185 the Ricci text discusses the dilemma between functional rationality and substantive rationality—the former being concerned with more short-term, narrow-minded ideas and the latter concerned with the long term. To present this difference, he offers Reich’s example of an automobile executive and his “car-maker’s dilemma.” When this automobile executive is in his role, he is seeking solely to maximize profits and doesn't concern himself with ideas such as producing fewer cars to channel the material to a better use of resources. He is incapable of making decisions that are responsible for the community as a whole. When he is outside of his role he is powerless because his role is the source of his power.
I am afraid that some of our elected officials and political parties will fall victim to much of the same dilemma. Many of these people/parties gain power from the role they hold, and this role is being defined more and more by interest groups, corporate dollars, and hidden agendas instead of their traditional “intended” purpose to provide a voice for the people, (etc.). Because of the extent to which their loyalties to these interest groups dictate their decisions (whether they admit it or not), this may make these people/groups incapable of taking a more functional approach—opting for the short term gain at the expense of the long-term loss. They will make decisions that benefit those who throw the dollars at them at the expense of what is best for the community because they won’t be able to think or act responsibly otherwise. This is quite concerning, yet it seems to me like the Supreme Court is inadvertently condoning these practices? This doesn’t seem healthy or sustainable.
It is just a thought so I may be misinterpreting Ricci, Kirkpatrick, or the Supreme Court’s decision, but I thought I would take the risk and share anyway.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I like this, Abi. I too, enjoyed that passage of the book. It rings very true in the world that we live in, sadly enough. Is there any way to remedy this situation? It can happen in many fields, as small as pizza delivery by car being bad for the environment up to the choice of dropping a nuclear bomb. The ones with the power are not only those in the roles, however. As part of the society everything we do has an impact and hopefully we can become educated about the issues and the possible grassroots solutions that we ourselves as individuals, and collectively can put into action.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Chelsea, grassroots organizaing can be very effective and spark changes at a large level, but it takes quite a bit of time, effort, and patience. However, a grassroots movement must be credible to be taken seriously by decision-makers. Money and influence are married, and the SCOTUS ruling just gave corporations (and unions to a lesser degree) the green light to spend more freely to buy influence and access to the decision-makers. This ruling makes grassroots and community organizaing efforts even more difficult and blurs the vision of lawmakers who are supposed to represent that pesky "voice of the people." (Robison, 2010)
ReplyDeleteAs noted in another comment, it's not exactly clear what the effects of this ruling will be other than what Abi has noted, particularly with regard to diminishing the role of parties. The amendment to the Federal Election Campaign Act that allowed big contribtions to political parties, the so-ca;;ed "soft money" loophole that was closed by McCain-Feingold in 2002, was the breakdown in party voting in Congress that resulted from the power wielded by PACs in campaign finance after Buckley was decided in 1976. Fewer and fewer votes in Congress were "party unity" votes (where a majority of one party was on one side and a majority of the other on the other side). This was because members defected on issues of concern to PACs; so the recipient of money from the dairy industry PAC would defect from the party line on dairy subsidies, etc. Soft money had the desired effect of restoring party unity, but it had the unintended consequence in presidential elections of empowering the wealthy contributors whose influence had been diminished by the contribution limits for hard money gifts to campaigns.
ReplyDeleteThe reference to susbtantive rationality in the context makes sense: I think the ruling has pretty well established that neither of the two existing parties will now dare to be other than a "corporate party," fearing to antagonize the wealthier segments of corporate America due to their control over cash that funds campaigns. I've not read the decision and the concurring and dissenting opinions yet (it's 116 pages long), but it does apparently have some vulnerable places where Congress, as noted in another post, can deny LLC status to corporations who insist on exercising the same first amendment rights that only individuals are entitled to. In other words, Congress can up the costs of corporations doing business this way. Heck, they could even pass a tax on direct electioneering expenditures. The question: Would the president dare to sign such a bill? Sadly, I don't think so.