The Perils of Power

The recent exploits of Anthony Weiner are only the latest in a string of seemingly irrational acts committed by folks seen as powerful in their respective arena. John Edwards and his love child, Arnold Schwarzenegger and his, Dominique Strauss-Kahn and the chambermaid, Chris Lee and his shirtless pose for Craigslist: just some of the more recent. One could say that such behavior dates back at least to Richard Nixon and his Watergate albatross, but all have one thing in common: powerful people doing stupid things.

The first phase of this stupidity path is audacity. Many, if not most of us have fantasized about committing some sort of illegal or immoral act. The little voice that keeps us from acting on that impulse is our conscience telling us that we’re screwed when (not if) we get caught. The powerful, though, have come to ignore that voice as they are led further and further into the land of make-believe where anything they do can be made to disappear.

The audacity leads one to act on impulse and, when caught, to the lying that inevitably follows. (Chris Lee the notable exception since he resigned from Congress immediately upon being discovered.) Once again, audacity reigns supreme in creating the belief that the bad news will simply go away simply because of the individual involved.

Sooner or later, the truth comes out in one way or another. The facts pile up as water behind a levee and cracks are soon exposed which allow even more details to come rushing onto the public scene. The powerful have learned that the rest of us demand they take responsibility for their actions. As such, many now claim that they take full responsibility for their actions. Only after their lies have failed, of course, and they seem to believe the claim alone will bring the unpleasantry to an end.

 Responsibility is hollow absent consequence, though, and this is where power starts to trip upon itself. You see, the powerful see consequence as having no place at the head of their table and refuse to entertain its certainty. Nixon’s resignation, Clinton’s impeachment, Arnold’s divorce and DSK’s incarceration are all fine examples of the consequences stemming from the doing and the lying.

Anthony Weiner now refuses to resign from Congress. The point seems moot to me since he will be shunned within those halls and subsequently spurned by the voters. While his acts may not be illegal and many may deem them something short of immoral, his lying as an attempt to avoid responsibility and consequence should be unpardonable. I would hope that honesty and integrity be sacrosanct for any member of Congress.

So long as there are pedestrians within the halls of power, be they political or corporate or social, the perils of audacity, avoidance, responsibility, and consequence will exist. True, over time we become disillusioned with those considered role models and subsequently cynical of those that follow. Perhaps, if we all accept the fact that power doesn’t dispel human failings, we can better accept the bad side when it appears.

As for Weiner? Well, should he decide to resign, I’ve an idea for his future enterprise: the marketplace is apparently in need of professionally photographed poses of penises.  Who wouldn’t want their manhood to be depicted in its best light before sharing it with the cyber-world? He’s got the name and the experience. He could call it DixPix!

Outsiders

The political landscape is rife with candidates representing themselves as “outsiders”. This shouldn’t be surprising in light of the current distrust of those on the inside of the beltway in D.C. or a particular state capitol. Nevertheless, can we expect an outsider to be an effective legislator regardless of position? I’d say no and I’ll share my reasoning.

Some outsiders come from the corporate world where they enjoyed various levels of success. A case in point is Meg Whitman, a California GOP candidate vying for the party’s nomination for Governor. Ms Whitman gained fame while running EBay and is now pouring a good bit of her personal fortune into her election bid. The cornerstone of her campaign lies in the rationale that the state should be run as a company in which action outranks talk. Needless to say, the reaction is positive as frustration grows with legislative infighting and partisanship. A closer look, though, reveals a fatal flaw in such reasoning: Meg could take a “my way or the highway” approach to her company, but in Sacramento she will be forced to deal with a legislature, where the true power lies. Without a cooperative atmosphere, little progress will be made. Ross Perot would have faced the same problems had he been elected to the Presidency. Such CEO mentality might work in an authoritarian government, but usually meets its Waterloo in any kind of representative framework.

Charismatic candidates have been thwarted by the same dilemma. Jesse Ventura as the Governor of Minnesota and California’s Arnold Schwarzenegger both enjoyed celebrity status but failed to align the all-so-valuable legislators to advance their agendas. The idea that electing a matinee idol and expecting everyone involved with the political process to fall blindly into lockstep is naive at the very least.

Yes, the electorate votes for change by sending an individual to the State House or the White House or even Congress, but the change is hard to come by for a simple reason: no one is a political island. A Governor or President must create alliances within their respective legislatures to introduce laws and ultimately enact them. Without this alliance, gridlock ensues. And the “insiders” of those legislative bodies are loathe to entertain any scintilla of success for their Chief Executive. To do so creates the impression that career politicians are no longer necessary to do the will of the people. You can do it...or I can, too. This spells a boatload of trouble for anyone striving to maintain their place at the feed trough. So, while no progress is a bad thing for the constituents, it represents a return to politics as usual come the next election cycle. Mr. Ventura served but one term and Arnold is termed-out. Had he been able to run again, I doubt if he would have won the GOP nomination, let alone the election. Congressional outsiders are ostracized by their senior colleagues until they come around to the insider way of thinking. No committee posts or other opportunities to participate in the process. Most who resist opt out of seeking re-election or lose their bid for a return to office.

It is rare to find a candidate that is truly an outsider. Perhaps John F. Kennedy may have well been the latest one in the White House and that was largely due to his private wealth that enabled him to avoid the usual obligations to powerful interests. (Could it be that this fact had something to do with his untimely demise?) Regardless, the idea that simply seating an outsider within a political process that depends upon debate, alliance, and compromise generally fails to produce the desired results.

This has driven many voters from the process as they increasingly believe that their input is meaningless. True, human nature being what it is, politicians can be expected to act like everyone else when it comes to hanging on to one’s job. That alone, though, should not dissuade us from voting for “outsiders” as they represent a break from the past and the status quo. Their success, though, is another matter altogether, and we should not be surprised should they fall victim to concerted efforts undermining their agenda.