5 ms·

Stop electing the politicians who appoint cronies?

by AndrewBissell 13y ago

growingconcern 13y ago
Too bad there aren't any.
- saraid216 13y ago
  You could run for office. Would you appoint cronies?
  - kzrdude 13y ago
    You could run, but how to get the funding to be an actual contender?
    - eli 13y ago
      Oh, c'mon, that's just an excuse. In fact, it's the same excuse people use to avoid entrepreneurship. Money helps you run a campaign, just like it helps you run a business. But sometimes the scrappy, bootstrapped startup still beats the big entrenched enterprise. That's why we're on HN, right?
      - unclebucknasty 13y ago
        Kind of ironic that you're making this statement on this thread. The Net was indeed supposed to democratize the world, including, presumably, politics. A candidate would then be able to run a bootstrapped, grassroots campaign. But, that didn't happen, and for reasons very similar to the subject: entrenched interests use their money to continue advancing their own agenda through the media, other corporate gatekeepers, and regulatory capture. It will soon take $1B to run for the presidency, and about as much to pay ISPs in order to launch a competitive streaming company. So, you might just have it backwards: the current rules have to change in order to allow for a viable bootstrapped candidate. This, instead of such a candidate miraculously making her way to success, then changing the rules.
        saraid216 13y ago
        > So, you might just have it backwards Not really. It's a chicken-and-egg problem, not causality. This is a problem that predates the concept of America. Monarchies addressed it by having a three-way tug-of-war between the monarch, the entrenched interests, and the masses, and American politics have tried very hard to ape that with a very powerful central executive. With, you know. Predictable results. Changing the rules won't actually make a difference, much respect as I have for Lessig's Rootstrikers' efforts. That is, as Colbert put it, rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenberg. The fundamental problem isn't that no one gets elected without spending oodles of cash; the fundamental problem is that oodles of cash have to be spent at all. We live in an age where democracy requires marketing. That's the rule you need to change. Not coincidentally, that's also the rule that makes free markets impossible.
        unclebucknasty 13y ago
        Well, what I was trying to do was point out a bit of irony in the GP comment. Judging by your and eli's responses, obviously I wasn't successful. I'll give it another shot. At a time when our political process is broken, full of cronyism, regulatory capture, and co-opting by moneyed interests, we get this new position from the FCC. The position itself is about giving those with money (e.g. Netflix) advantages on the Net. The Net, of all things, which was supposed to be a democratizing, equalizing force. So, what did the GP say in response? "Hey, money doesn't matter. Scrappy bootstrapped campaigns can overcome!" This, even while the very topic of this thread is moneyed interests' de-democratization of the single greatest potential tool for making scrappy, bootstrapped campaigns an actual possibility. I mean, at what point do we consider that democracy is losing and money is winning? >Changing the rules won't actually make a difference >We live in an age where democracy requires marketing. That's the rule you need to change. You're not going to change the need for candidates to communicate with the electorate, nor should we want that. Instead, you change the rules such that candidates simply do not have the money to spend, then you watch as the media, parties, candidates, and entire political process re-structure themselves to allow for viable candidates to be identified and subsequently engaged with the electorate. Here's where the Net can truly be a democratizing force, and even moreso when combined with other media. There's no need for candidates to spend money on marketing. They are the story, and the media clamors endlessly to get their messages out.
plorg 13y ago
A) Of course, how do you know they'll do so until you elect them? B) Many politicians who get into office are quite busy, so they tend to trust the people they actually talk to, which are often the people at campaign fundraisers. Cronies may just be people who, conveniently, are always at fundraisers, hence are familiar to politicians. I don't think that's proper, obviously, but easy explanations rarely capture the complexity from which corruption arises.
- rhizome 13y ago
  Not to mention that a major skill in politics is to hide who pulls your strings. It is anti-democratic for Obama not to call this kind of thing out when it happens, to speak for the citizenry rather than the industrialists. If Obama was on the customer's side at all, he would be leaking information. "Sorry guys, but the way it actually works is..."
r00fus 13y ago
So with only two parties, both of which are corporatists, and money=speech means those with the most money buy the best laws (for themselves), you end up blaming the voter? Remember in 2000 when Ralph Nader was prevented (by both parties) from attending debates? How many third parties get any visibility from the corporate-funded media?
anigbrowl 13y ago
One of the first things Obama did on entering office was write an executive order contractually banning lobbyists for working for the administration for 2 year after their most recent lobbying job, or going ot work from the administration into a lobbying job in the same field for 2 years after leaving office, as well as posting a list of such restrictions publicly. It's somewhat effective: http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2011/01/19/obamas-revolving-door-transparency/ http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2011/01/19/obamas-revolvi... However, at the moment it has to be contractual because constitutionally it's quite hard to restrain people from taking whatever job they want, and also because many voters want elected representatives to 'bring home the bacon' by getting government subsidies for business that will lead to more job creation. I don't think this should be the role of representatives or senators, but a lot of people do. Even people who argue for smaller government and campaign against 'pork' seem quite happy when government largesse lands in their own community.
davorak 13y ago
Appointing cronies seems to make it easier to get reelected or prepare a nice landing for after you political career is over. What incentives can be applied to promote appointing the competent and unbiassed?

Stop electing the politicians who appoint cronies?

growingconcern 13y ago

Too bad there aren't any.

saraid216 13y ago
You could run for office. Would you appoint cronies?
- kzrdude 13y ago
  You could run, but how to get the funding to be an actual contender?
  - eli 13y ago
    Oh, c'mon, that's just an excuse. In fact, it's the same excuse people use to avoid entrepreneurship. Money helps you run a campaign, just like it helps you run a business. But sometimes the scrappy, bootstrapped startup still beats the big entrenched enterprise. That's why we're on HN, right?
    - unclebucknasty 13y ago
      Kind of ironic that you're making this statement on this thread. The Net was indeed supposed to democratize the world, including, presumably, politics. A candidate would then be able to run a bootstrapped, grassroots campaign. But, that didn't happen, and for reasons very similar to the subject: entrenched interests use their money to continue advancing their own agenda through the media, other corporate gatekeepers, and regulatory capture. It will soon take $1B to run for the presidency, and about as much to pay ISPs in order to launch a competitive streaming company. So, you might just have it backwards: the current rules have to change in order to allow for a viable bootstrapped candidate. This, instead of such a candidate miraculously making her way to success, then changing the rules.
      - saraid216 13y ago
        > So, you might just have it backwards Not really. It's a chicken-and-egg problem, not causality. This is a problem that predates the concept of America. Monarchies addressed it by having a three-way tug-of-war between the monarch, the entrenched interests, and the masses, and American politics have tried very hard to ape that with a very powerful central executive. With, you know. Predictable results. Changing the rules won't actually make a difference, much respect as I have for Lessig's Rootstrikers' efforts. That is, as Colbert put it, rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenberg. The fundamental problem isn't that no one gets elected without spending oodles of cash; the fundamental problem is that oodles of cash have to be spent at all. We live in an age where democracy requires marketing. That's the rule you need to change. Not coincidentally, that's also the rule that makes free markets impossible.
        unclebucknasty 13y ago
        Well, what I was trying to do was point out a bit of irony in the GP comment. Judging by your and eli's responses, obviously I wasn't successful. I'll give it another shot. At a time when our political process is broken, full of cronyism, regulatory capture, and co-opting by moneyed interests, we get this new position from the FCC. The position itself is about giving those with money (e.g. Netflix) advantages on the Net. The Net, of all things, which was supposed to be a democratizing, equalizing force. So, what did the GP say in response? "Hey, money doesn't matter. Scrappy bootstrapped campaigns can overcome!" This, even while the very topic of this thread is moneyed interests' de-democratization of the single greatest potential tool for making scrappy, bootstrapped campaigns an actual possibility. I mean, at what point do we consider that democracy is losing and money is winning? >Changing the rules won't actually make a difference >We live in an age where democracy requires marketing. That's the rule you need to change. You're not going to change the need for candidates to communicate with the electorate, nor should we want that. Instead, you change the rules such that candidates simply do not have the money to spend, then you watch as the media, parties, candidates, and entire political process re-structure themselves to allow for viable candidates to be identified and subsequently engaged with the electorate. Here's where the Net can truly be a democratizing force, and even moreso when combined with other media. There's no need for candidates to spend money on marketing. They are the story, and the media clamors endlessly to get their messages out.

plorg 13y ago

A) Of course, how do you know they'll do so until you elect them? B) Many politicians who get into office are quite busy, so they tend to trust the people they actually talk to, which are often the people at campaign fundraisers. Cronies may just be people who, conveniently, are always at fundraisers, hence are familiar to politicians. I don't think that's proper, obviously, but easy explanations rarely capture the complexity from which corruption arises.

rhizome 13y ago
Not to mention that a major skill in politics is to hide who pulls your strings. It is anti-democratic for Obama not to call this kind of thing out when it happens, to speak for the citizenry rather than the industrialists. If Obama was on the customer's side at all, he would be leaking information. "Sorry guys, but the way it actually works is..."

r00fus 13y ago

So with only two parties, both of which are corporatists, and money=speech means those with the most money buy the best laws (for themselves), you end up blaming the voter? Remember in 2000 when Ralph Nader was prevented (by both parties) from attending debates? How many third parties get any visibility from the corporate-funded media?

anigbrowl 13y ago

One of the first things Obama did on entering office was write an executive order contractually banning lobbyists for working for the administration for 2 year after their most recent lobbying job, or going ot work from the administration into a lobbying job in the same field for 2 years after leaving office, as well as posting a list of such restrictions publicly. It's somewhat effective: http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2011/01/19/obamas-revolving-door-transparency/ http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2011/01/19/obamas-revolvi... However, at the moment it has to be contractual because constitutionally it's quite hard to restrain people from taking whatever job they want, and also because many voters want elected representatives to 'bring home the bacon' by getting government subsidies for business that will lead to more job creation. I don't think this should be the role of representatives or senators, but a lot of people do. Even people who argue for smaller government and campaign against 'pork' seem quite happy when government largesse lands in their own community.

davorak 13y ago

Appointing cronies seems to make it easier to get reelected or prepare a nice landing for after you political career is over. What incentives can be applied to promote appointing the competent and unbiassed?