The Unlawful Lawmaker Cliché

One of the largest clichés of the modern political era is that of the political leader who does not lead by example. These seemingly successful, accomplished people work hard in their lives to reach the pinnacle of accomplishment–being voted into office by the populace. It is from there that their seemingly impeccable records seem to get smeared completely. Whether it’s a sex scandal or a case of bribery, or making false statements on record about their involvement with, or use of, drugs, politicians have long lost their leadership credentials. Even the cleanest of the clean seem to eventually be found to be dirty. It’s gotten to the point that the average citizen is wondering if lawmakers actually desire to research bankruptcy laws.

Because, after the press conference in which they confess to the nation their criminal deeds, often without a hint of remorse, these criminals lose a lot. They lose their immediate career, and the income associated with the job they’ve worked so hard to land. They often lose their spouse, who may attempt to stick with them for a while, but all too often, falls by the wayside as the rationalizations begin to arise. Justifying one’s bad behavior is never a good way to present it to the spouse who has been shamed, embarrassed, and whose trust is often in pieces following the national coverage of their partner’s crimes.

Besides losing their jobs and spouses, politicians found to have engaged in unlawful activity lose reputation. The entire premise of lawmakers being in existence is that they are supposed to possess moral compasses that are more precise than usual. They are supposed to know the laws inside and out. They are supposed to follow those laws, not pretend that they are only for those lowly citizens who earn a more meager income. Leadership needs to be by example again!

Enhanced by Zemanta

Money and Running for Office

How much does the amount of money a political candidate has play into the success or failure of running for office? Can an American citizen who’s outside the political arena or who doesn’t have personal wealth successfully campaign and win an election?

It appears more and more that politics is becoming a game of money instead of based on issues and concern for the country. The 2010 governor’s race in California is a good example. Candidate Meg Whitman, former CEO of eBay, has broken that state’s record on campaign spending by outlaying close to $90 million with the race still months from conclusion. Estimates put her personal contribution to the campaign close to 90 percent of what’s been spent so far. Her campaign’s spending is over seven times what her opponents have spent on their campaigns. Critics point out that Whitman could have done much to help California’s budget crisis and the state’s citizens instead of spending the money on negative ads, chartered jets with top-notch service, high-end fundraisers in Beverly Hills and high-salary political consultants. (Mike Murphy, the candidate’s chief consultant, reportedly makes $90,000 per month.) Other opponents accuse Whitman of deciding on a whim to run for office after she left eBay.

But the spending appears to be working, at least during the primary election. Whitman won over her main opponent Steve Poizner who accused Whitman of blatantly buying the election. She’ll be pitted against the Democratic candidate, former California governor Jerry Brown, who is known for his fiscally conservative public and private values. As of July 2010, the two are tied in the race for governor.

And don’t expect to see any third parties having much success at the polls. It’s difficult for them to compete with the highly funded Democratic and Republican parties. Third party candidates have been trying to work their way into the American political scene for years. The most well known are the Independent, Progressive, Libertarian and Green parties. But only two percent of the third party candidates in the past nine years have won their elections.

Enhanced by Zemanta