The Clinton System
nybooks.com
nybooks.com
All the research in the world about the details may be interesting, but all anyone needs to know about Hillary Clinton is that she claims that huge quantities campaign contributions and face-to-face meeting time from Wall Street have no impact on her decisions and priorities. That claim alone is enough to completely discredit her. Period.
Never never never trust any person who says "I'm immune to this apparent conflict of interest." I'm not even making a judgment about whether Hillary Clinton believes her own claim. She might be flat-out lying or she might be completely honest yet totally deluded. Either way, she's untrustworthy.
The only way to trust someone is if they say "I am human, and so I am susceptible to conflicts of interest, so I am actively avoiding such conflicts (or, if any conflicts arise, I will recuse myself or at least acknowledging the conflict)." A person who denies the significance of conflicts of interest is a person unfit for decision-making.
In the most recent Clinton/Sanders debate, she made two claims within a few sentences of each other:
1. That the Koch brothers are using their vast wealth to bankroll elections for politicians in exchange for influence in lawmaking.
2. That contributions to her campaign had no strings attached and that she was immune to such corruption.
I was hoping that Sanders would pick it up but he missed that opportunity to expose her hypocrisy.
To first order I think this is a pretty good model of money's influence on politics, though it's definitely not the entire story.
However, empirical research provides overwhelming evidence that basically everyone is susceptible to conflicts of interest. In other words, that logical model you describe doesn't fit observed reality.
Either Hillary is lying or she has delusions about her own immunity to influence. The only way to not get influenced is to avoid the things that would influence you.
FWIW, I care more about educating people to understand that all people are susceptible to conflicts of interest than about pointing out Hillary's particular conflicts of interest. I'm somewhat more offended that she is spreading the myth that people can be immune to influence than I am about whatever particular influences she's subjected herself to.
So, e.g., suppose that before any money gets thrown around there are exactly two Democratic presidential candidates: Hillary Clinton (who loves Wall Street, just because she does) and Bernie Sanders (who hates Wall Street, just because he does). Then Wall Street donates a bazillion dollars to HC's campaign, she squashes BS like a bug with her superbly-resourced campaign, and becomes president. Since she (honestly, sincerely, incorruptibly) loves Wall Street, she uses all the power the presidency gives her to advance the interests of Wall Street. And, bingo, Wall Street has got what it wants by spending money, without any politicians being corruptible. In a parallel universe, Wall Street has no money to spare for political donations (that would eat into their bonuses, which would never do) and Occupy Wall Street donates a bazillion dollars to BS's campaign instead. Now he squashes HC like a bug with his superior campaigning firepower, becomes president, and makes banking a felony -- and, bingo, OWS has got what it wanted by spending money, again without a shred of corruption being needed.
Back in the real world, of course no one is incorruptible, and indeed I bet real-world-Hillary is influenced by all those donations, but it seems pretty plausible to me that the mechanism davmre describes is in fact at least as important as corruption in explaining why large donors make large donations.
(But I also agree with whoever it was that said any answer less definite than "no, of course I am not influenced" would likely be political suicide, and a policy of never voting for anyone who makes that claim is in practice probably equivalent to a policy of never voting for anyone who has large enough conflicts of interest for the question to be put in the first place.)
Incidentally, an American can praise Al Qaeda all they want (free speech), but they can't send money to them.
You see, money isn't speech when it comes to funding terrorism. Money is only speech when it suits the 1% who own and run the corps that pay the legislature to enact law.
The entire gist of Lawrence Lessig's arguments of late are that we really are not seeing successful politicians simply being those who already love Wall Street and rich corporations. Instead, we are seeing those with some leanings in that direction also being normal people influenced in predictable ways by the system being set up so that most of their time and energy is spent with these biased sets of constituents.
In other words, politicians do change their views based on who they talk to and what they learn. And the system just works so that the people they talk to and learn from are almost always representatives of Wall Street and big corporations.
In the end, there's certainly both factors happening. Big money goes to elect those who already serve big money's interests, but big money also goes toward being in the place where its message gets heard by whoever is there. There's certainly lots of cases of big money donating to both sides of a two-way race.
Well here you go: https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N000...
I'm not particularly political, but Clinton is a particularly unnerving example of the kind of politics I find distasteful and a symptom of our broken democracy.
(Not denying that the original statement is unrealistic and that political donations are problematic.)
From http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/clinton-plays-defe...
> "I have never heard a candidate," Sanders said, "who has received huge amounts of money from oil, from coal, from Wall Street, from the military industrial complex, not one candidate say: 'Oh, these campaign contributions will not influence me. I'm going to be independent.' Well, why do they make millions of dollars of campaign contributions? They expect to get something. Everybody knows that."
> Clinton snapped back, "Wait a minute, he has basically used his answer to impugn my integrity."
This pattern is consistent too. She never says, "yes, of course conflicts of interest exist, but here's why this is not one" or "here's what I'm doing to address the influence this could have on my decisions" or anything of that style. She always says that somehow it's wrong and unfair for people to even suggest that she's susceptible to influence relating to who her donors are and the time she spends with them…
Effectively, Hillary is exactly making the claims you say are political suicide. And Sanders is continuing to mention that he has avoided this particular source of influence and Hillary has not. He's refusing to do real personal attack ads because Sanders has never run such true negative attack ads in his whole career. He'll never attack Hillary that boldly. He won't go beyond talking about the issues with her influence and priorities. He won't jump to saying she's a deluded or dishonest person or anything like that.
Saying "how dare you even question that," as Hillary does, has turned out quite well, and she's never had to admit her human frailties that way.
I think a good question: do people like to vote for someone who admits to having limitations and weaknesses, even though they are running for one of the most powerful positions in the world?
While Sanders might play a straight bat (cricketing term I think, but you can guess the meaning) you can bet Clinton's potential GOP opponent down the track will not at all. Hell, even amongst the Republican candidates it's an out and out poo-flinging war.
Hillary is indeed in a position where she has to claim to be super-human and immune to influence because the ramifications of acknowledging her influences are too problematic. But I want people to be more offended and distrusting over her claims of super-human objectivity than over her (still quite troubling) Wall Street connections. But I'll admit that isn't likely the case. I hope we'll keep working to educate the general public about basic science of human psychology and conflicts-of-interest…
Anyway, apologies for misconstruing your comment.
In Australia, I believe that the biggest companies can gain favour with unspoken pressure (threats of capital flight, unfavourable advertising, etc) as much as any donations. One politician recently suggested that there are 10 companies which basically dictate terms in this country: four banks, two supermarket giants, three mining giants and a telco.
to answer one idiom with another, never say never. if a politician was sufficiently transparent about who they met with and took money from, acknowledged the potential conflicts of interest, documented decisions, sourced research thru firewalls, and generally had a system in place to prevent the temptation from manifesting, i'd be inclined to trust them
a good regulator might benefit from understanding the impact they're having, and that means talking to businesses. and an honest business that works with a bright and honest politician would have an incentive to help them stay in office, even if that money didn't buy them consideration. so there's potential non-corrupt reasons that these "donations" could happen
that said, i'm not claiming that hillary clinton, or any other politician that i'm aware of, has done this
Here's another: "never vote for someone who claims to be omniscient and basically know everything". How about this: "Never vote for someone who claims to never need advice from others". I support "never vote for someone who claims to have all their decisions dictated to them by God".
There are all sorts of extremely low bars that can and should be set. We can easily find tons of people who pass them. Anyone who doesn't pass very basic requirements like this should indeed be disqualified.
To be clear, if Hillary came out and said, "I never meant to say I was beyond bias or that the time and money from my supporters has no influence at all. I'm human. But I meant that there's no quid pro quo. I'm not specifically going to do whatever Wall Street asks, I'm going to do research and listen to other views as well when making decisions," then I would immediately say "okay, she retracted / qualified her previous claims, so she passes that minimum test of acknowledging one's own bias after all".
Currently, she seems to be saying, "oh, I got millions from financiers and gave lots of speeches to Wall Street, but that doesn't influence my views at all". That disqualifies her. Nobody should support anyone who claims such bullshit.
(It's even arguable that Clinton hasn't; she doesn't claim immunity to all bias, she just claims that receiving millions of dollars from the titans of the financial industry somehow doesn't bias her.)
When people mistakenly believe that they have to vote for one of the few options given to them, candidates only need to seem decent enough to possibly edge out the others. As different people value different priorities, this inevitably results in a race to the bottom. The only winning move is to not play.
I won't be fooled into thinking that steering the 5% of difference between candidates is worth endorsing the common 95% that is never up for discussion.
There are plenty of people I've voted for, even though I don't think they have great character and/or have done shady things in the past and/or have shown poor judgement on some issues.
For instance, my present city council member has had an extramarital affair with one of his staffers, but OTOH he's something of a visionary as far as city planning goes. I would vote for him again, despite the fact that his actions were deplorable.
Aside: my views on this used to be closer to yours. As years went by I became convinced that withholding my vote was not sending any message (in a Turing sense, principled apathy looks a lot like mere apathy, and may indeed lead to it). Witnessing some very, very close elections was also a factor.
"I will never vote for a person who supports general warrants"
I can apply that to the candidates, and it's extremely helpful in filtering out the really bad ones. That one issue - being in favor of general warrants - is more than enough to disqualify a candidate as being worthy of the presidency.
As with any filter and context, it depends on what filter you choose to you apply, and sometimes how many filters.
I mean, the campaign contributions for H.Clinton for all its career come from the usual suspects, but the quantities involved are ridiculous, if you compare it with the quantities she and her husband received from speeches. And then there is the Clinton foundation.
Any honest person that look into it should have a problem with this.
I think the number one most important lesson we can teach people in life overall is to understand the ways in which we all, as humans, are susceptible to bias. So I see Hillary's claims as an attack on this most fundamentally important principle and thus worse than any of her political dealings otherwise.
Now we don't have any primary candidates to vote for.
You accuse Sanders of populism, but his program is a lot more detailed than Clinton's and, the economic part, has been endorsed by professional economists: http://usuncut.com/politics/170-top-economists-back-bernie-s...
About the congressional approval, obviously, you need new blood there too. Sanders and his supporters are very aware of this.
I think is funny that the guy calling things by their name is, precisely, the guy accused of being naive and unrealistic.
Yes, politics are messy and there is more give and take than that, but even with that it doesn't necessarily rise to the level of true corruption.
I dislike that the whole lobbyist conversation has gotten dumbed down to the point that any kind of conversation is by definition evidence of corruption. It could just as easily be described as another form of diplomacy. But we don't tend to claim (at least not since the days of Karl Rove scoffing about the desire to "understand" our enemies) that diplomatic ties are by definition a "conflict of interest".
quadrangle talked about conversation and campaign contributions together. Conversation by itself is fine. But I see no reason why payments by lobbyists shouldn't be de facto evidence of corruption.
Yes, politics are messy, but there is a huge chasm between talking to lobbyists and taking their money. The former is, as you point out, necessary to the process. But the latter inherently undermines the process.
As soon as you can legitimately ask whether or not a donation has affected policy, it becomes impossible to fully trust the system. And the more relevant the question becomes (i.e. the more money that has changed hands) the less trust you can have.
Being a representative democracy, we're forced to trust our elected representatives to do what is in our best interest, which may be at odds with what the lobbyists want, because 99.98% of us don't have the money or influence to compete with the lobbying arm of an entire industry.
For example, do you think there is a reason that politicians who take money from oil interests are strongly correlated with those who deny climate change?
My comment was about her denying the overwhelmingly scientifically-supported fact that people are influenced and biased by conflicts-of-interest and by those they spend their time around. Sure, someone could say, "I work at a Starbucks on Wall Street and spend my time mostly around bankers and such, and I hate them." I mean, I wasn't saying that spending time with people necessarily makes you sympathetic. But it certainly affects you in some ways.
I didn't say "Hillary is disqualified because she's corrupt" (although that may be true, that wasn't my comment).
My point is this: understanding the power of conflicts-of-interest over even totally well-intentioned people is among the most important things for anyone to understand in life (both about themselves and others). Hillary is spreading a message that even questioning someone about conflicts-of-interest amounts to calling them ill-intentioned. That idea is among the worst, most dangerous, most destructive ideas anyone could spread. Someone who claims effectively that only bad people are influenced by conflicts-of-interest is someone who has such wrong ideas about reality that they should never get any power.
Maybe this is normal and I am naive, but this seems pretty screwed up.
Doesn't the GOP support big contributions by corporations?
If anything it should be "Sanders FUD"?
"Weapons sales by the United States tripled in 2011 to a record high, driven by major arms sales to Persian Gulf allies concerned about Iran’s regional ambitions, according to a new study for Congress." [0]
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/world/middleeast/us-foreig...
When did the IB times folks look at their numbers? (from October 2010 to September 2012).
That looks damn cherry picked to me.
Meanwhile her policies and stances are nearly identical to Sanders except with a dose of reality when it comes to implementation.
As for reality – if I had to define the dialogue of this election, at least on the Democratic side, it wouldn't be a focus on modest, incremental, or "practical" approaches, but rather achieving ambitious, populist goals, demanded by those with a deep frustration with and even sense of injustice about the state of politics and the world. There's a very real desire for these kinds of changes, so much so in my view that implementation will necessarily follow from such strong demand.
But to be honest, he seems to be more of an idealistic that is only driven by ideology, an ideology of the common good. Because we're on HN, I can use the following metaphor: he's (kind of) the Haskell of American politics.
To compare his views to those of Clinton is unfair to her, because just like in programming, there shouldn't be scorn and contempt for someone trying to accommodate reality and pragmatism into their views, because as awesome as Bernie Sanders' ideas are, he's pushing so far to the left of American politics that finding common ground with moderate Republicans in the general election will be extremely hard. I relish that he's setting an agenda of social progress and economic justice, but do take into account that chivalrous theories are evidently great until you actually have to act upon them and draft legislation, find consensus, navigate Washington, forge alliances.
All of which is extremely hard if you don't have the kind of flexibility that Hillary Clinton possesses. I say both candidates are important for the Democrats and I'm glad they present slightly different facets of the liberal ideals in 2016 America.
Does that sound as a positive quality for the presidential candidate?
I don't know much about american politics in particular, but I always presume that the role of the president is based on finding compromises between different parties, slightly nudging them to what he believes is right, and making the whole political machine works.
To elect someone who is known for his inability to compromise as a president sounds like a good way to get your government completely locked. Even if you think that any other candidate is evil and this one is fighting for what you believe for, it still doesn't sound like a good idea.
It's also pretty disingenuous to suggest that one of the few independents in the Senate can't work with both sides.
If you actually read my comment, you'll notice that I not only don't mention Sanders, I don't mention US at all. I specifically construct my arguments to be abstract, because it's easier to reason about abstract model that approximate some certain aspects of reality, than trying to argue about a complex situation as a whole.
> To elect someone who is known for his inability to compromise as a president...
Having "stubborn, unwavering commitment" to ones ideals does not mean that one is incapable of compromise. That's a separate axis that may be correlated, but is not the same as commitment to your ideals.
Good point. However, I haven't used Sanders as a whole for the model, I only used the quoted property — and I did implicitly assume that these two properties are closely correlated.
So, wouldn't you agree, that by default, a person A who with "stubborn, unwavering commitment can be expected to have problems reaching compromises? And that if he wishes for people to think that he's able to reach a compromise and be a peacemaker, he has to do more convincing than a person without said quality? Once again, I'm not talking about any particular politicians here.
Let's call this one irrelevant?
She gets a strike for each and every one. Why oh why would a government donate money to an NGO like the Clinton Foundation if not to buy influence.
There is not a single government that doesn't have it's own poor and suffering to deal with. Others, like Qatar have their own vehicles (Qatar Foundation) through which to render aid and assistance and fund research. There is no reason to hand that off to a third party.
It's controlled by a religious cult or its leader, at least last I knew. I don't know that I put much faith in it. I'm not trying to tear down the whole story, but I think knowing and trusting sources is essential, especially in politics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBT_Media#Partnerships
Someone from IBT seemed to guard their Wikipedia pages, so there's probably more than you'll read there. If you really want to dig into it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:IBT_Media#Olivet_and_Davi...
We know that money talks, how can we trust any of our leaders who take so much of it to get elected?
"The right to pardon is an authority given to the President of the United States (POTUS) by the US Constitution in Article II, Section 2. This section specifically reads that the POTUS “shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.” Essentially, the only way presidential pardon is restricted by the constitution is under the circumstance of the sitting president being impeached. Self-pardon is not restricted by law, and under interpretation by the Supreme Court, a president could have the right to pardon himself not only for crimes he has committed, but also for crimes with which he has not yet been charged"
http://www.wisegeek.com/does-the-us-president-have-the-right...
And based on the mess around David Petraeus(retired CIA director) and his pleading guilty to mishandling of classified material some 3 or 4 years after the fact; the election could very well be over before any formal charges are made.
Personally I feel like all of the US presidential elections come down to a choice which one possibility I dislike the least. Right now there is a lot of bad choices from my point of view; Bernie is a socialist, Clinton is under FBI investigation and shouldn't be running until that cleared up, Trump just wants to add to his "legacy" and probable make a bundle of money, Cruz is as far right as Bernie is to the left and extremist of any kind are a bad thing.
Electability isn't just about crude left-right positioning. It's also about personality and trust.
Moderate voters could reluctantly go for Bernie's politics, just as they could reluctantly go for any random republican's politics. What they won't tolerate is Hillary.
People really really despise her.
I think this is the curse of the Clintons - the ruthless one is the more unlikeable one.
It's going to come down to if you want Trump or Clinton picking the next couple of supreme court judges, which will basically set in concrete the future of our country and most definitely affect you for the rest of your lifetime.
If you want fewer rights and more restrictions, you will vote Trump.
If you want more rights and fewer restrictions you will vote Clinton.
Each are a horrible mess and Clinton is a horrible compromise but she is certainly the lesser evil.
If it makes you feel better, a president can only do so much, it's Congress that should be upsetting you.
However you need to lookup what "conservative" means if you feel a republican president is going to allow more liberties.
Trump isn't just financially conservative (at least for everyone else, not for himself) he is very socially conservative in his most current reality show (aka running for president). Ironically a decade ago he was fairly socially liberal.