Political bribery
Related to Marc and Colin’s posts on political “compromise,” Michelle Malkin outlines here and here the various ”gifts” or “bribes” that Democratic leadership has granted to certain legislators and interest groups in return for their support for healthcare reform. One example in the bill is increasing Medicaid subsidies for ”certain states recovering from a natural disaster,” which apparently, after two pages of clarification, refers only to Louisiana. It seems that the $100 million in subsidies was granted to guarantee the support of moderate Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu from Louisiana. All things being equal, such an unequal grant of federal money, assuming it’s unwarranted for special considerations, would be unjustified.
But the ends of national healthcare reform, for Democrats, are said to justify such unseemly means. At first blush, there doesn’t seems anything wrong with this, at least from the perspective of the Democratic leadership. For lots of good democratic reasons, policy is forged through the politics of Congress, and if one is not willing to play those politics, then one will never forward his agenda and he will serve no purpose as a representative. And certainly from the perspective of what’s best for the nation, the Democratic leadership could justify this to themselves reasonable and rationally.
However, what about Landrieu herself, assuming she pushed for the subsidy? Is it right for someone to take advantage of (her) party’s biggest domestic policy like this? What if everyone held out until their state was granted a special benefit? But what else is Landrieu do to, then to fight for the best deal for her constituents? From what perspective should she be pondering the bill (the nation as a whole, Louisiana’s, current citizens, future citizens, etc.)? I think the rightness or wrongness of her politics depends upon the answer to the perspective question.
The right answer might involve some Kantian fairness: She should act according to rules that she wishes all congresspeople upheld. If that formulation is right, since she would not wish every member of congress to hold out for her constituents in such an egregious manner, her actions are improper.
-Jake
Related posts:
- Replacing the donkey with a bull?
- Is political science relevant?
- Design as political education
- A changing political philosophy?
- State skepticism
ShareComments
Leave a Reply
