I've always thought that corruption is unavoidable in ruling parties - because corruption always starts with the best of intentions. David Brooks explains:
Back in 1995, when Republicans took over Congress, a new cadre of daring and original thinkers arose. These bold innovators had a key insight: that you no longer had to choose between being an activist and a lobbyist. You could be both. You could harness the power of K Street to promote the goals of Goldwater, Reagan and Gingrich. And best of all, you could get rich while doing it!
Before long, ringleader Grover Norquist and his buddies were signing lobbying deals with the Seychelles and the Northern Mariana Islands and talking up their interests at weekly conservative strategy sessions - what could be more vital to the future of freedom than the commercial interests of these two fine locales?
Before long, folks like Norquist and Abramoff were talking up the virtues of international sons of liberty like Angola's Jonas Savimbi and Congo's dictator Mobutu Sese Seko - all while receiving compensation from these upstanding gentlemen, according to The Legal Times. Only a reactionary could have been so discomfited by Savimbi's little cannibalism problem as to think this was not a daring contribution to the cause of Reaganism.
Again, Republicans have no special aptitude for corruption. Neither do Democrats. But it always comes, and it always (at least in healthy two- or multi-party democracies) leads to the end of the governing coalition.
NOTE: When I say "governing coalition," I don't necessarily mean the kind you get in parliamentary systems, where two or more parties explicitly share power in order to form a government. Yet even in our two-party system, we still have governing coalitions. The two-party system simply masks the fact.
The Republican Party includes everyone from Evangelicals to libertarians. The Democratic Party includes a similar range of interests. Each party is, in and of itself, a coalition of interests.
In regards to your note, I used to be in favor of the multi-party parlimentarian systems. Seemed like such a great idea, being able to vote for a minor party and know you would still get some representation.
Then I realized in those systems people vote and then politicians form the coalitions. In out system, politicians form the coalitions and then people vote.
I like that a lot better. You at least have a fair chance of knowing what you are voting for.
The reason Im a JeffersonianRepublican is that ..."Power corrupts...."
Republicans are just as crooked and greedy as Democrats. Give 'em power and they will misuse it.
Republicans have become big government. Since the year 2000, Republican controlled Congress has passed 2 of the biggest government laws that would have made Democrats in the 80's (not the 60's and 70's) blush in McCain-Feingold and Sarbanes Oxley. McCain-Feingold doesn't need any further explanation as I'm sure that most of you political junkies are more informed than I on the subject, however SOX is one of the worst, anti-business pieces of legislation ever passed. I have hands on experience with how badly SOX affected the way my company does business and it was passed in a Republican Congress.
Steve has made this point repeatedly: divided government is a good thing. When one party gets too much control, they start finding ways to stick their nose into whatever their special interest groups are favoring.
Speaking of John McCain--he is the one of the worst. He's trying to get the federal government involved in steriod testing for freaking baseball (baseball!) for Chrissakes!
