Corruption 101

Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig is upset. It seems that President Obama has not "delivered on his promise to curb money in politics." He expresses his frustration in Salon's The tyranny of tiny minds and big money.

This “challenge” was an essential element in Obama’s argument. Without such reform [of the influence of money in politics], the aspirations of his campaign — from healthcare reform, to global warming legislation, to reform of the banks, to an overhaul of the tax system — would not just have been audacious. They would have been insane. All the money in the world was not simply going to be lulled to sleep by Obama, the great speechifier. Only by effecting a real change of its power within the system of our government would the Obama agenda be even possible.

Lessig is an expert on how corruption works, which is why we're citing him today.

That’s because the system of government that we have now is corrupt. Not corrupt in the traditional Rod Blagojevich sense of corruption. Our Congress is not filled with crooks. Quid pro quo bribery is not its central crime. Instead, corrupt in the sense that the attention of Congress is constantly drawn away from where it would be focused if it were an institution, as the Framers intended, “dependent upon the people alone.”

It is not. As members spend more and more of their time raising money (estimates range between 30 and 70 percent), Congress becomes an institution dependent upon its Funders, too. And as “the Funders” are not “the people”— .26 percent give more than $200 in a congressional campaign, .05 percent give the max to any individual candidate, and just .01 percent of Americans, 1 out of every 10,000, give more than $10,000 in an election cycle — that dependency corrupts Congress. Seventy-five percent of Americans believe “campaign contributions buy results in Congress.” Barely 10 percent have confidence in Congress.

This institution, the core of our democracy, is politically bankrupt. And it was therefore appropriate, indeed, essential, that the president make its reform the catalyst for any real “change.” If this indeed was to be “change you could believe in,” changing Congress had to be part of the plan.

Yet three years into this administration, we have yet to see the plan...

Yet three years into this administration, we have yet to see the plan...  Lawrence Lessig of course is merely playing his pre-assigned role in a 4-Act Tragedy typical of our times.

• Act 1 — A "progressive" politician P makes promises of sweeping reform
• Act 2 — Progressive voters flock to the polls in support of P
• Act 3 — Once elected, P reneges on those promises by ignoring reform altogether
• Act 4 — Indignant progressives write articles in Salon decrying the lack of reform

Nevertheless, and unbeknownst to him, I have "invited" Lessig to give a "guest lecture" for our DOTE course offering Corruption 101 (video below). (This is a required course; you can not graduate without it.) His presentation is one of the best I've ever heard on the subject. He knows his stuff, as the text I quoted above indicates.

The interesting part of Lessig's talk lasts until about the 26 minute mark, at which point he delves into the only "solution" to the corruption problem, which is public funding of public elections. In so far as Lessig teaches at Harvard, which is only a so-so institution of higher education, he has not taken some of the advanced courses we've offered on DOTE over these last two years. We've provided extensive, in-depth coverage of topics like delusional thinking, unwarranted optimism and obligatory hope, not to mention mindboggling ignorance and stupidity.

Those teaching at second-rate universities like Harvard are required to have a life-long addiction to Hopium, which is the most powerful drug known to man. Opium and its derivatives don't hold a candle to it. At Harvard and similar institutions you are not allowed to analyse an intractable problem like systemic political corruption without also offering constructive solutions, no matter how far-fetched they appear to be. Hopium is very, very powerful stuff. It makes the human world go 'round. The 4-act tragedy outlined above would not be possible without it. It secures tenured positions at Harvard. There is literally nothing the Hopium addict can not accomplish or is not gullible enough to believe. If you doubt this, just ask Barack Obama.

I should add that in so far as the Executive and Congress themselves must change the law to take money out of politics and shift us to a system of public funding of elections, there would seem to be a snowball's chance in Hell that such reform will ever come about. Otherwise, the Hopium-addicted reformer must turn to The People and a constitutional convention to get the job done, which would require 2/3rds (34) of the state legislatures to approve reform amendments. (Lessig favors such a convention to re-draft the constitution.)

A constitutional convention seems extremely unlikely to work, or even come about, and if the number of viewers who watched the Super Bowl on Sunday is anything to go by, The People seem very content with the various entertainments and gladiatorial contests thrown up to keep them docile. And did you know that the Super Bowl MVP always visits Disney World the next day? You can't make this stuff up

Despite this depressing engagement with Reality, the first 26 minutes of Lawrence Lessig's talk is well worth listening to. Here it is, Corruption 101.

I want to believe...

Comments

[sharonsj]

Obama can't change the rules by himself. Congress must do it first, through legislation. So we need to keep up pressure on our representatives in every possible way, or just keep throwing them out until they get the message.