Are we a nation of panderers? Former Sen. Paul Simon (D-IL) thinks so.

[Padraig18]

In his latest book, former U.S. Sen. Paul Simon frames an argument that we've become a nation of panderers, particularly our elected officials. Simon asserts that gone are the days when we elected statesmen who acted for the betterment of country as a whole and not simply for a select few or in response the current public sentiment. Today's politician is more apt to be influenced by popular opinion or those who support them through campaign contributions.

As he wrote, "The desire to win has always been part of our political scene, but two things have turned a temptation for candidates into a threat of our free system: First, polls can tell us on a daily basis ... what people are thinking. In the zeal to win, political leaders too often use these polls to embrace the whims of public opinion rather than stand firmly for the public interest.

"Second, campaign contributions now play a huge role in who gets elected. In the process of securing that funding, candidates, and more seriously, officeholders find the time that they should devote to complex issues being devoured by begging for dollars," he continues.

It is a candid admission from one who worked within the system he describes. Simon also admitted that he was caught in the same trappings, relating that when he'd return home late at night from the Senate floor and find 20 messages -- 19 from people unfamiliar to him and one from a large political donor -- he was more likely to return the contributor's call first.

Simon's thesis, which is spelled out in the 208-page book "Our Culture of Pandering" is not only thought provoking but unfortunately rings true.

Those outside of the political system are often frustrated by the actions of the people we elect to represent us. We clearly sense that politicians kowtow to special interests or base decisions by what is popular, not necessarily right.

This has disenfranchised many from the political process. As Simon describes, "No matter how kindly voters treat the panderer in the voting booth, the public overwhelmingly believes that candidates will say one thing to get elected and then ignore their pledges once in office."

This lack of faith, spurred by the actions our politicians and perpetuated by our jaded view of them, is prevalent and counterproductive.

The mounting deficits at the federal, state and local levels of government attest to this. While the cost of running government has risen because things are more expensive in general, that figure is inflated even more when money that should be used for the good of the public as a whole is instead spent to placate special interests. Those interests may have stated a good case for why they need the money, but more likely they had found ways to influence our leaders unrelated to whether pleasing them was right.

A graphic example of this can be found in the state of Illinois' own budget. Looking at the general revenue fund -- the fund used to operate the State and dole out to special interests -- it has skyrocketed in the past 10 years. In fiscal year 1994 general revenue appropriations where $14.3 billion. This fiscal year they are at $23.4 billion. That is a 64 percent increase. Those who run households know it doesn't cost 64 percent more to do so today than it did 10 years ago.

Why is it costing more? I believe that pandering politicians, looking to secure votes, contribute to the escalating cost of running government.

How do we change this culture as Simon describes? It starts with an educated and proactive populace. We must understand both the issues facing us and how government works so that we can keep in check those elected officials who place more importance on pandering to special interests than meaningful policy benefitting the populace as a whole. It is our duty as voters, but one we often times fall short of fulfilling.

By keeping up with the issues we can then make learned decisions on whether or not our public officials are acting on our behalf or simply for the benefit of a few special interests.


Agree? Disagree? Thoughts in general?

:hi:

[sistersofmercy]

1. Agree.

I'm from St. Louis, grew up across the river, I have a lot of respect for Paul Simon.

[ulysses]

2. he's right.

:thumbsup: I always liked Simon.

[lumpy]

3. I haven't read the book and probably won't.

Panderers is perhaps a weak description of what this nation has become. Greedy panderers is more apt. The political process has been corrupted and this nation is in peril of being sucked down the tube. My thoughts ? Too little too late. We have mooned the world and it isn't pretty.

[Padraig18]

4. He's an amazing individual

I've had the distinct pleasure to have met Sen. Simon on numerous occasions, since he is still somewhat active in the state and local Democratic party; the last occasion when I heard him speak was at our Labor Day celebration.

At that gathering, he spoke for about 15 minutes on the subject of whether or not the Democratic party was ever as 'liberal' as many claim, and his conclusion was that it was not--- that that perception is flawed and historically inaccurate. He said that people mistakenly consider FDR to have been the first modern 'liberal' President, when in fact he was the ultimate pragmatist; in support of that position, he pointed to FDR's borrowing of many socialist ideas not out of true belief in socialism's tenets, but out of an intense need to find something that would work to improve the economic dislocations and disruptions of the Great Depression. In other words, Simon said that the modern Democratic party is more accurately described as 'humanely pragmatic', rather than 'liberal'.

:)

[Cocoa]

5. sounds like a book worth reading

thanks for your review, I hope my crappy little neighborhood library has a copy.

[Padraig18]

6. Vanity kick

:P