Jesus fucking christ, really? I've got mayonnaise older than this fucking presidential term and we're already excoriating Obama for his "legacy?" I love how the exact same organizations that berate and belittle the banks for having all the power and influence will berate and belittle anyone who takes money for talking to them.But when he left the Oval Office for the final time – leaving it in the tiny hands of the very racist who had demanded his birth certificate – I fantasized that he’d join us on the front lines of marches, battle for the salvation of Obamacare in ingenious ways, and maybe turn up at a Black Lives Matter event.
Man. If there is any evidence that we live in a really weird, polarized time, it's how people talk about Obama. I was gonna make a comment earlier but failed to be eloquent about it and it basically boils down to any commentary on him is either absolutely praiseworthy or absolutely condemning, and the praises and condemnation comes from both ends of the political spectrum, and very few concessions are given. During his eight years of presidency, I got called wishy-washy so many times when conversations came up about him, because I would talk about things he did that I thought were awful and things about him that I thought were great, and people really wanted me to pick one side or the other and stick with it. Some stuff I thought he was at fault for personally. Some stuff I understood weren't his fault, but were the fault of a shitty system. Some times I think he went too far. Other times, I think he didn't go far enough. I think maybe the fact that I didn't absolutely loved or hated him showed he did an ok job as a president, but man, the stuff he did that made me angry really made me angry and the stuff that he did that I liked I really liked and eight years is a long time and I can't remember the majority of the stuff he did so I sometimes don't know if it really impacted me all that much. In short, if you're a public figure in today's society, chances are, you can't win them all.
This attitude seems to be really common. I've had a few discussions with close friends recently who feel as you do, and we all agree that whenever we voice any kind of "in-between" position, or just talk about the good and the bad in equal measure, that people tend to view it as sitting on the fence and not picking a side, as if life is supposed to be as simple as a game of football.I got called wishy-washy so many times when conversations came up about him, because I would talk about things he did that I thought were awful and things about him that I thought were great, and people really wanted me to pick one side or the other and stick with it.
Most people are staunch partisans, above all else. If you do anything to challenge the black and white, team-based nature of politics, it is seen as a personal attack against their fundamental beliefs. It's why moderates or centrists receive a double helping of scorn from each party. The only thing more threatening to a Democrat than a Republican, is someone who challenges their two-party oligarchy.
Maybe fifteen years back Jon Stewart pointed out that politics is dominated by extremists because most people have better shit to do with their time. I think it's fair to say that most people are disinterested above all else. The people who are interested are generally interested tribally - it's rare you find someone who likes to watch sports but has no favorite teams.
So, it wasn't that people's policies were extremist but their views on things? That makes sense, now that I think about it. Many people of both parties (haven't seen much Dems, though) are utterly stubborn about the way things are supposed to be done all around the board.
What amazes me are the people who can rail against Obama for not accomplishing more liberal shit AND rail against the congresscritters and the nazi gestapo goosestepping Republican Party and not recognize that Obama? He had to legislate through that shit.
From what I've read, it's not about the amount of money for the people I've read who are criticizing. It's about the source of the income. The speech is to Cantor Fitzgerald, a Wall Street banking and investment firm. I didn't see those same people balking when Obama accepted the $65M book deal. That wasn't seen as a Wall Street type firm.
Lemme guess... his $400,000 speaking fee means that someone places a value of $400,000 on his perspective and insights? Market rates, baby. Deal with it. I've got a friend who gets between $8k and $60k for the same speech, depending on the audience. Some people value the information more highly than others. Why is this even news?
... You realize he got a $65m advance on his memoirs, right? So is your position that Alfred A. Knopf has 150x the influence over the presidency of Barack Obama than Wall Street does? Because I know you understand politics better than this, but i also know you like to indulge in an unhealthy amount of what I'll charitably call "dudgeon for nothing" because spitting out these phlegmatic little gobbets of nothing means you don't have to chew it over, I guess?
I would be equally upset if he took only a single paperclip out of the tray on his way past the reception desk. It's not about dollar value and you know it. It's about the principle that money needs to be taken out of politics. Obama taking this money validates the idea that money is an acceptable method of effecting politics.
And that's why you're upset so much - you reserve the right to be morally outraged unless everyone conforms perfectly to your platonic ideal of the universe. "It's the principle of the thing" has been said before more needless catastrophes than anything this side of "god is great" and I think you should reflect - for just one fucking moment - on whether or not any politician anywhere has ever done anything that you don't feel scornful about. You've erected a scenario for yourself whereby obviously Obama is a craven money-grubbing opportunist because now that he's out of office, he's getting speaking fees... probably for something underhanded and dishonest that he did while in office and you didn't even bother to notice that Cantor Fitzgerald's biggest political contributions were to John Fucking Boehner. Being "equally upset if he took only a single paperclip" doesn't make you principled, it makes you pathologically unreasonable. Who should he take money from? What should he do? Because I want this fucking organization to have every resource they can get and I don't give a shit if they take money from Satan himself. And that probably makes me a cuck or some shit in your eyes but I know one thing - I spend a lot less of my day outraged.
Ah to be young again, and see the world in black and white. It was so much easier then! The answers were so clear! I envy your righteous right-ness. But honestly, if someone offered you money to speak on a topic you know well, would you take it? Or would you tell them no?
Totally on a side bar here and not trying to engage in the "Well, is Barry a sellout?" discussion, but I am driven to point out that some people would turn down an offer like this not because of morals, but because there is no fucking way in hell I would desire to or be able to speak in front of a crowd like that. I cried reading a poem in front of 12 people once; I chronically blush; eeehhhh, I think I would pass. Edit: OK, on second thought, I might agree if there was absolutely no content requirement. I could say hi and leave, right? On another note ... what if we waited to call him a sellout until we heard what he had to say? Would be freakin' hilarious if he takes their money and gives a speech about the necessary overhauls he thinks the banking and investment industry needs. ...yeah, sure, he probably isn't going to do that, but if the rest of you are going to make him a sell-out or a bribe-taker or a smart money man, why can't I make him a maverick?
I would love to see this. 'Thanks for the check guys. You know, you should probably stop buying and selling Senators and members of Congress like NFL free agents.'Would be freakin' hilarious if he takes their money and gives a speech about the necessary overhauls he thinks the banking and investment industry needs.
I mean, Alan Greenspan said, I didn't understand at all what they were trading. So I think it's in everybody's interest to get back to a better transparent model. And we need banking. I mean, right now, there are so many places in our country where the banks are not doing what they need to do because they're scared of regulations, they're scared of the other shoe dropping, they're just plain scared,so credit is not flowing the way it needs to to restart economic growth. So people are, you know, a little —they're still uncertain, and they're uncertain both because they don't know what might come next in terms of regulations, but they're also uncertain because of changes in a global economy that we're only beginning to take hold of. So first and foremost, more transparency,more openness, you know, trying to figure out, we're all in this together, how we keep this incredible economic engine in this country going. And this is, you know, the nerves, the spinal column. And with political people, again, I would say the same thing, you know, there was a lot of complaining about Dodd-Frank, but there was also a need to do something because for political reasons, if you were an elected member of Congress and people in your constituency were losing jobs and shutting businesses and everybody in the press is saying it's all the fault of Wall Street, you can't sit idly by and do nothing, but what you do is really important.You know, I remember having a long conversation with Warren Buffett, who is obviously a friend of mine, but I think he's the greatest investor of our modern era, and he said, you know, I would go and I'd talk to my friends and I'd ask them to explain to me what a default credit swap was, and by the time they got into their fifth minute, I had no idea what they were talking about.And when they got into their tenth minute, I realized they didn't have any idea what they were talking about.
No it's not. You said you "would love to see" a speech about the necessary overhauls the banking and investment industry needs. Clinton gave that speech. It was leaked by Russia. You were explicitly given what you asked for. Your response? "I still want to be mad."
Taken from the passage you cited Translation - We really didn't want to change a single thing about the way you guys do business, because it's good for every senator and congressman and the entire political ecosystem if you guys are stinking rich. The press says that it's your fault that everyone is broke (But we both know that's not true, wink wink nudge nudge) so we had to do SOMETHING or else the little people might have actually gotten upset enough to do something crazy like vote out their sitting senators and congressmen. Why was the contents of this speech a secret? Why was it politically potent for it to be leaked? Obama just spoke to bankers and to 'mature' people, that's not anything politically potent. Why does it matter? I asked for someone to actually tell the financier class 'Hey, guess what, we're bringing Glass-Steagall back because you guys literally couldn't stop stealing and making openly consumer-hostile decisions if your lives depended on it. Thanks for the check.'there was a lot of complaining about Dodd-Frank, but there was also a need to do something because for political reasons, if you were an elected member of Congress and people in your constituency were losing jobs and shutting businesses and everybody in the press is saying it's all the fault of Wall Street, you can't sit idly by and do nothing, but what you do is really important.
I know I wouldn't. There's nothing I can say to the guys at Cantor Fitzgerald to convince them that they need to stop using their money to influence the political process. I firmly believe that money in politics is the single biggest corrupting influence at work in our process right now. There are other forces at work, but getting rid of that force would help substantially.
OftenBen has a pretty good point, kleinbl00, goobster. A very common criticism I see of congressmen is when they leave their office and take up cushy jobs at legal or lobby firms for major corporations. If a person has an influential position on a law being made that affects telecommunications for example, and then after they leave public office takes a job at a phone or cable company, it retroactively colors their decision as a possible conflict of interest. Large payments for public speaking could easily have that same impact.
My company contracted with a brilliant utility lawyer. I can only guess what her fees were, but they would have been significant. She then became a commissioner for the state regulator, the same regulator that reviews and approves or denies things we want to do. After her term was complete, we again contracted with her until she left for a position at the Department of Energy. The perception might be bad, but were we bribing her? Did we have influence at the DOE? No to both. It's a small world when one gets into niche subjects. The same names come up again and again. I suspect this is common in any industry.
Sure. The more specialized the industry, the smaller the talent pool, the more likely you're going to see these kinds of things happening. I think the question comes though, where do we draw the line? Cronyism is a real issue, with real world happenings, and real consequences. That's part of the reason we as a country value concepts such as free speech and transparency as tools to help fight corruption and also why we have laws against things such as political gifts, bribes, and kickbacks to begin with. I think a good rule of thumb is, the more power or influence a person has, the higher the standards we should hold them to. With that in mind, people criticizing Obama for $400,000 speaking fees sounds more than reasonable. I'm not saying he's right. I'm not saying he's wrong. I am saying that the fact that the issue is catching people's attention does seem appropriate.I suspect this is common in any industry.
I think the question comes though, why do we draw the line so demonstrably further for Democrats? In this case, it's "the more power or influence a person used to have." People really want their heroes to be Superman and their enemies to be Lex Luthor. It's a manichean stupidity that shouldn't be entertained.I think the question comes though, where do we draw the line?
I think a good rule of thumb is, the more power or influence a person has, the higher the standards we should hold them to.
If you consider Jon Stewart et al. to be liberals, which seems to be the case, it's much more rare to see them bang their own walls. They are what I can best call "passive political figures": they don't act on their own (barring, perhaps, Stewart - haven't been keeping much of an eye on the rest), but they still propagate a certain point of view, and due to their popularity, people tend to listen.
Here is the other side of the coin that liberals often miss: Who do you want to run an agency or department? Someone with a deep understanding of the function of that agency, who has experienced the problems with it first hand, who knows the effective people in the industry whose support can influence an industry to change? Or do you want Betsy deVos? Or Scott Pruitt? (Or, honestly, any of Trump's other appointments?) There are a small number of people who know complex industries well. Their experience is valuable both within the industry, and at the regulatory agencies that govern those industries. So rail against skilled people doing jobs they know well, but the Tea Party and the Freedom Caucus have both proven that when you bring in outsiders, they are completely ineffective. The learning curve is simply too steep for a neophyte to come into a role and learn the entire market they control, within the few years a President is in office.
I agree. I'd just like to point out though, that when we see these kinds of things happen and the person has an (R) next to their name, liberal messaging boards light the fuck up. Guarantee you, if this was Bush or Trump or some other Republican that did this, r/politics would have a fucking conniption.
BUT THEY DON'T. That's the point. Bush is making millions from his speaking fees, too. You think this shit happens for free? Liberals/democrats lose their shit when liberals/democrats don't act like the fucking pope but Republicans shrug off the fact that it costs a half million dollars a day for Melania Trump to stay in New York. The reason there's so much outrage on this post is that Democrats have no problem eating their own and then wonder why they're outnumbered by Republicans.
I was meaning more of the whole being appointed to cushy positions after holding office. I'd also half argue that Bush is kind of four years past being relevant at this point, but then, shit, I dunno. I think it's interesting that we've had this whole thread and no one has brought up Republicans railing against Hillary for all of her "private Wall Street speeches" or whatever. I mean, I didn't wanna bring it up because I don't want to be the one to say "Well, it's hypocritical of them, but broken clocks and all that shit." It's just weird, because constantly people talk about getting money out of politics and all, then we have people who formally held political office earning big bucks partially because their former positions gave them cache and insight and a marketable name, and everyone's talking about it like it's alright, because it's part of the system. I don't think I'd draw the line as starkly as OftenBen, but I'm more than comfortable saying that it's kind of fucky, $400,000 for a speaking deal is a bit outrageous, and a $65 Million contract for a book deal is obscene. I would be more than comfortable saying that cushy jobs and payments like these are part of what attracts greedy people to public office at various levels of the government. Also, I dip my toes into r/politics from time to time just to see what people say. When guys like Chaffetz, McConnell, McCain, Trump, Pai, Trump, Spicer, and on and on and on so much as sneeze, the sensitive libs wilt, the angry libs rage, and the hyperbole flies all over the place. How any of those guys have the energy to keep it up, I don't know.That's the point. Bush is making millions from his speaking fees, too. You think this shit happens for free?
It's only "weird" because we liberals have this odd mental construct that there is some sort of line between politics and business, and there simply isn't. You can't get to a senior level in any major corporation without dealing with stupid regulations, and policies and laws that make you scratch your head and ask, "what the fuck were they thinking?!?" So you complain to your friends about it at a dinner party, and they say, "Yeah! I was thinking the same thing!" Then you decide to Do Something About It, and now you are meeting with the Chamber of Commerce and they connect you with politicians who have similar/dissimilar beliefs, and you debate it with them. And, if you are fiscally well-off enough to be able to sacrifice several years of your earnings and corporate-ladder-climbing to earn a piddling wage in public service, you run for office, get elected... and now you have ALL issues to contend with, not just the ones that were pissing you off. But what do you know? The business you were in. So you look for experts to consult with on the stuff you don't know much about. "Gravel pits? What the fuck do I know about gravel pits?!?" So you talk to the owners of a couple of gravel companies and trucking companies, and some experts on transportation issues in the state (hint: these are called Lobbyists), and you form an opinion, and someone hands you a pre-written policy that pretty much deals with the core problem of the Gravel Pits, and ... A grassroots campaign gets you ousted from office because you killed off the last breeding pair of Thompson's Turtles anywhere in the state - who happened to nest next to the gravel pits - and now you are out of a job because someone else got elected to do the shit work of a politician for $13,000/year. What now? You have a lot of knowledge about the business you were in before you ran for office, you now have a lot of connections in government, and you STILL WANT TO ADDRESS THAT FIRST GODDAMN THING that got you involved six years ago. And it turns out that your surfacing the issue and championing it in the political arena, well, it earned you some friends. So they pay you an annual salary to keep dogging that issue, pushing it, using your connections to talk to friends and educate them on the thing and ... Guess what? You are now an accursed "Lobbyist". And you make excellent money. Way more than $250k/year. And you get to affect public policy without having to be elected. And you set your own hours. And you get to accept all the benefits you want, from anyone who wants to give them to you. "Bob! I hear you are going to Minneapolis to talk to the Governor there about Gravel Pits. Tell ya what: My plane is going there to get its annual service, so why don't you just jump on and fly out there? It'll take a week to finish the full service, but I've got a condo you can crash in, and there's a couple of people I'd like you to meet who have this new Gravel Pit technology that is just going to change the industry. Interested?" Well? Are you...?
And then we have the other end of the spectrum, where the same mechanism allow cronyism to exist. You and kleinbl00 and WanderingEng all seem to be talking about whether or not it's normal. It's normal as shit. I know that. I'm not debating that. What I'm wondering is where, how, when, and why we draw the line and say "this is when it gets to be unhealthy, counter productive, and potentially dangerous." If I could go to some country where it's normal as fuck to have to grease three different palms to get something as simple as a driver's license, a lot of people would shrug their shoulders and say "Yeah, it sucks, but that's just how it's done." If the next time I renew my liscense, the teller slips me a bit of paper asking for an extra $20 to "expedite" things, it's gonna be a huge shock. If I see a former politician get paid more money for a few hours of speech than most of my friends will make in half of their adult lives, it's not gonna be a huge shock, but it's gonna stop and make me consider shit, including "why the fuck isn't this a huge shock?" That's the thought process that has been going through my head since this whole thread started and the more I think about it, the more I start to think that maybe people have a right to be upset.
No one is talking about "normalcy." We're all talking about whether you should be offended or not. goobster didn't quite get to this point, but here it is: if you're competent at what you do, and you want to live a normal life, you're going to find a job where you're paid what you're worth. I have never been so close to voting Republican as when I spent a year dealing with local elected officials. They suck. The guys I'm dealing with cost me an easy $100k through pure incompetence. They're doing their jobs badly and my community is suffering as a consequence. In theory, government belongs to the people who can fix things or at least keep things running. In practice, unless you can attract people who don't suck you're going to get the guys who can't get hired to do anything else. Meanwhile there are regulations upon regulations upon customs upon boobytraps to keep people from profiting while in office. This is right, this is just, this is good. But the regulations that they write and change and advance and rescind and alter and reinforce alter the fundamental flow of commerce and while your senator makes a pretty good dayrate, your county councilman does not. What it comes down to is that our capitalist system handsomely rewards the capitalist lobbyists and capitalist industrialists who want to change the laws, and punishes the socialist bureaucrats and socialist enforcers who carry them out. If governing made a better living than petitioning the government there'd be no tension here... but we're more likely to induct Kapital into the constitution than we are for that to happen. So what we're left with is people howling at the moon that the most powerful man in the world for eight years, the first black president in history, might actually get paid by rich people to talk to them. And make no mistake. ANY amount of money at ANY point from ANYONE would have EVERYONE howling at the moon. There is no scenario in which OB or any of his ilk would not be offended. And that's why this shit pisses me off.
And that's why this shit pisses me off. My very first comment was me agreeing with your first comment and while it doesn't piss me off, per se, I do find it very silly. I think fundamentally, we're in agreement in a lot of ways, and fundamentally, we're in disagreement in a lot of ways. I'm getting angry though, because I mean, as I said to goobster, while I think people are way overreacting about Obama, I do see where they are coming from, I do think their frustration comes from a valid place, and man, I just want to try and figure out whether accepting $400,000 from the same people he rescued from the problems they created themselves is fucky or not and I keep on getting distracted by all of these dumb side arguments that do very little to address that.And make no mistake. ANY amount of money at ANY point from ANYONE would have EVERYONE howling at the moon. There is no scenario in which OB or any of his ilk would not be offended.
What it comes down to is that our capitalist system handsomely rewards the capitalist lobbyists and capitalist industrialists who want to change the laws, and punishes the socialist bureaucrats and socialist enforcers who carry them out. If governing made a better living than petitioning the government there'd be no tension here... but we're more likely to induct Kapital into the constitution than we are for that to happen. So what we're left with is people howling at the moon that the most powerful man in the world for eight years, the first black president in history, might actually get paid by rich people to talk to them.
A moral relativist, I see. I'ma write some headlines for you real quick: "FORMER PRESIDENT OBAMA ACCEPTS NEARLY A HALF MILLION DOLLARS FROM WALL STREET FIRM" "OBAMA TO GIVE CLOSED DOOR SPEECH TO WALL STREET INSIDERS" "OBAMA'S FIRST PAID APPEARANCE TO BE BEFORE FINANCE INDUSTRY" Hang on lemme write a few more "OBAMA TO GIVE SPEECH BEFORE PHILANTHROPISTS" wait where the fuck did that come from ohhhh shit wtf fuck me THAT Cantor Fitzgerald stahp Fuckin' black hats, these guys. Truly the Vampire Squid. Meyer Rothschild in Armani or some shit. Really - the narrative being spun is "people with money giving money to people with money." Fuckin' Jennifer Lopez made a million dollars singing at a Russian mobster's wedding. But oh god - there's money and influence and it's going to Democrats! Everybody freak the fuck out! The reason you're angry is because you're being yelled at. the reason you're being yelled at is you're saying the side argument is the main argument. 99% of the people who are butthurt over this speech don't even know who Cantor Fitzgerald is. They hear "wall street" and go full WHARRGARBL without further thought. But further thought is the place Democrats are supposed to dwell, goddamn it. And for those of us who have voted in more than a couple elections? it's fucking tiresome.I just want to try and figure out whether accepting $400,000 from the same people he rescued from the problems they created themselves is fucky or not
On September 19, Cantor Fitzgerald made a pledge to distribute 25 percent of the firm's profits for the next five years, and committed to paying for ten years of health care, for the benefit of the families of its 658 former Cantor Fitzgerald, eSpeed, and TradeSpark employees (profits which would otherwise have been distributed to the Cantor Fitzgerald partners).[11] In 2006, the company completed its promise, having paid a total of $180 million (and an additional $17 million from a relief fund run by Lutnick's sister, Edie).
The Cantor Fitzgerald Relief Fund provided $10 million to families affected by Hurricane Sandy. Howard Lutnick and the Relief Fund "adopted" 19 elementary schools in impacted areas, distributing $1,000 prepaid debit cards to each family from the schools. In total $10 million in funds were given to families affected by the storm.
Each year, on September 11, Cantor Fitzgerald and its affiliate BGC Partners donate 100% of their revenue to charitable causes on their annual Charity Day which was originally established to raise money to assist the families of Cantor employees who died in the World Trade Center attacks. Since its inception, Charity Day has raised $110 million for charities globally.
Cantor Fitzgerald lost sixty-eight percent of its workforce, considerably more than any of the other World Trade Center tenants or the New York City Police Department, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Police Department, the New York City Fire Department, and the United States Department of Defense. CEO and chairman Howard Lutnick, whose brother was among those killed, vowed to keep the company alive, and the company was able to bring its trading markets back online within a week. On September 19, Cantor Fitzgerald made a pledge to distribute 25 percent of the firm's profits for the next five years, and committed to paying for ten years of health care, for the benefit of the families of its 658 former Cantor Fitzgerald, eSpeed, and TradeSpark employees.
On September 2, 2004, Cantor filed a civil lawsuit against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for allegedly providing money to the hijackers and Al Qaeda, one of a number of organizations to do so. It was later joined in the suit by the Port Authority of New York.
I didn't mean to be dismissive with my other comment, and people have a right to raise concerns. My caution, though, is that there might be no back room conspiracy. It might simply be a deep pocketed organization sought to have one of the most prominent people in America come speak to them, and he in turn may have sought to maximize his post-public office speaking career. Or it might be an informal "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" arrangement. I think it's always fair to ask questions. It's not only fair, but it's good that people do. But those people need to realize it might not pan out and know when to take a step back before they get labeled as conspiracy nuts. Not for our benefit, but for theirs.
I never meant to imply you were being dismissive, so I'm sorry you got that feeling. All I was trying to point out was that I don't want to discuss what is and isn't normal. I just want to discuss whether this particular instance is okay or not okay and why.
You are missing the deeper question my little story illustrates: Who else do you want to do the job? Crying "cronyism" is a cop out. Because what IS cronyism? That you know someone who is good at their job? That you consult with them and ask them for input when you need to make a decision in their area of expertise? That you vote for the guy when he runs for office because you know he has a good understanding of the industry? "Cronyism" is an easy epithet thrown from people who are not in the room. Why aren't they in the room, taking part in the conversation? Because they aren't qualified to be. Either through lack of knowledge, lack of professionalism, or lack of access (because of the previous two deficiencies). No Wall Street banker is going to invite a megaphone-wielding, hoodie-wearing #Occupy protester to to the table to join in the discussion because they are not equipped to handle the conversation at that level. So the protester cries "Cronyism!" and goes out and gets another facial piercing. I used to live in countries where bribes were common. And ya know what? Bribes work when the system doesn't. Here in the US your permit gets denied for some esoteric detail. The mysterious machinations of the people behind the doors do their voodoo, and you are denied. (Just ask KB.) In Eastern Europe you just pay the guy another $50, and it is taken care of right there. No questions asked. Quick and easy. And ya know what? Nobody cares, because they know the system is fucked and overly complex and stupid. I understand you don't want it to be this way. I get that. I really do. But think about it practically... what other possible outcome is there? Politicians get their information from the sources that are available to them, and those sources are largely their "cronies", who, in any other context, would be called their "circle of friends." Should those circles expand? Absolutely. Should they include scientists and academics? Absolutely. But who is paying the scientist or academic to sit outside the Senator's office and meet with them? Imagine if a scientist applied for funding for their project, and the second largest line item on the Projected Expenses page was "Lobbying". What's the first line that gets cut, when the budget isn't approved? Double-blind testing? Researcher salaries? Lab equipment? Heh. Right. I'm not denying your base position that this is not an ideal way to run our system. But it is the reality of it, and railing against that is pointless. This is a system that can only be changed from the inside, over extraordinarily long time-scales.
People who are qualified, properly vetted, and don't have prior, current, or potential future conflicts of interest. You and I both know what cronyism is. Do not patronize me. Or it's actual concerns voiced by people who are actually paying attention who see potential issues with what's going on. But they'll totally invite a guy with a background in political science who just so happened to bail out their banks during a debt crisis that was totally their fault. So, I mean, you're right. It's not what you know, it's who you know. Huh? Here in the US your permit gets denied for some esoteric detail. The mysterious machinations of the people behind the doors do their voodoo, and you are denied. (Just ask KB.) In Eastern Europe you just pay the guy another $50, and it is taken care of right there. No questions asked. Quick and easy. And ya know what? Nobody cares, because they know the system is fucked and overly complex and stupid. This is not a serious argument. Bribes are a band-aid. A crutch. People need to stop and ask, why are the bribes happening, and what can be done to fix it? Is it because people in official positions aren't being paid enough? Address that. Is it because the system takes too long and is too complex? Address that. Is it because there is very little oversight and people think they can get away with things? Address that. Bribes are a short term fix for a more serious problem, and once again, people shrugging their shoulders and saying "that's normal" isn't gonna fix jack shit. Should those circles expand? Absolutely. Should they include scientists and academics? Absolutely. But who is paying the scientist or academic to sit outside the Senator's office and meet with them? Imagine if a scientist applied for funding for their project, and the second largest line item on the Projected Expenses page was "Lobbying". What's the first line that gets cut, when the budget isn't approved? Double-blind testing? Researcher salaries? Lab equipment? Heh. Right. Serious question. Serious, honest, one hundred percent straightforward question. Why do you keep using this hand waving argument with me like it's the only way things happen. Cronyism, nepotism, kickbacks, and all sorts of shady shit are real. It happens, we see it, people are currently concerned about it with Trump. People were concerned about it with Hillary when she was running for President. People were concerned with Obama and Bush and Clinton. It's a sliding scale, it's murky as shit, and all I keep on doing is pondering "Hmm, I wonder where a good place to start drawing lines are" and all I keep on hearing from you is "Silly little redneck, there's no lines to draw because the issue is all in your head." I am trying my best to keep calm about all of this, but I honestly feel like you're being unfairly dismissive for some reason I don't know why. I mean, I'm not saying you're attacking me or anything, but I am saying this conversation keeps on getting pulled in a direction I don't want to go in because it's not what I want to talk about. All I see is some murky fucking pool going on and all I want is someone to throw some fucking flares into it or something so I can get some better understanding of shit. Seriously. Fuck. The system can be changed from the inside, from the outside, in small growths, in large bursts, by so many mechanisms. Public perception of the issue and the conversations that arise from them, is part of that outside pressure. Saying "shit's normal, nothing to see here," is counter productive. The Model T was normal as balls on an ox back in the day. People demanding and expecting more is how we've gotten the Ford Fusion today.Who else do you want to do the job?
Because what IS cronyism?
"Cronyism" is an easy epithet thrown from people who are not in the room.
No Wall Street banker is going to invite a megaphone-wielding, hoodie-wearing #Occupy protester to to the table to join in the discussion because they are not equipped to handle the conversation at that level. So the protester cries "Cronyism!" and goes out and gets another facial piercing.
And ya know what? Bribes work when the system doesn't.
I understand you don't want it to be this way. I get that. I really do. But think about it practically... what other possible outcome is there? Politicians get their information from the sources that are available to them, and those sources are largely their "cronies", who, in any other context, would be called their "circle of friends."
I'm not denying your base position that this is not an ideal way to run our system. But it is the reality of it, and railing against that is pointless. This is a system that can only be changed from the inside, over extraordinarily long time-scales.
I'm not sure where you are getting this contentious vibe from, but that definitely is not my intent. I'm just trying to get you to see that "cronyism" is a cheap rhetorical device, that weakens your argument. Here's another way to look at it: Does anyone self-apply the word "crony" in anything other than an intentionally comically ironic context? No. So by falling back on the word "crony", you instantly devalue your point, turn off the listeners who you have accused of being "cronies" or engaging in "cronyism", and you have abdicated your responsibility for presenting a well-formed argument/point. YOU see "cronyism". THEY see "getting information from informed people/putting the most knowledgeable (and available) people into the role". So as soon as you cry "Cronyism!", you have lost the high ground, and the opportunity to inform or convince your reader. It's name-calling. My long-winded examples were simply ways of trying to help you see that perspective, and to hopefully inspire you to forming a more effective argument. Because, like I said before, I agree with you. But until you frame your argument in a way that ANYONE can use it, without name-calling, it's not useful. Here: I want people in office who do are there to serve, not people who are doing a job. Service takes a heavy toll. It is thankless, hard work, and you don't get paid well for it. So what I want to see are leading thinkers in their field running for office. They serve, do their duty, and then cycle back out into their industry, and continue to do their work. Climb the corporate ladder at their company, and have "House of Representatives 2004-2008" as a line on their resume. From another perspective, this is "cronyism", pure and simple.
I'm not sure that few want to admit it. I've seen numerous articles on the topic. To those people, it's the symbolism and the perception that it leaves that not only has the potential to taint his Presidency but also the integrity of the Democratic party going forward. Bernie Sanders called it "unfortunate" in this clip and "distasteful" in another. Elizabeth Warren is "troubled" by it according to Fox News . Fox New is smirking about it. Tucker Carlson debated someone in the democratic party about it. An opinion piece in New York magazine spoke against it, saying that it leaves doubt in the minds of people, particularly in the democratic party about his motives at the time, and by extension, others in the democratic party Another article critical of Obama taking the $400K saying that it leave doubt about what could have happened if money weren't involved. Here's a progressive saying that progressives need to come to terms with it before the party can move on. Van Jones doesn't think it's distasteful, but says that Obama should do a poverty tour of the country before he does the Wall Street speech.