Is anyone allowed to gain political power WITHOUT a skeleton in their closet?

[TahitiNut]

Poll question: Is anyone allowed to gain political power WITHOUT a skeleton in their closet?

This is a question that has nagged at me for years ... not only from my peripheral perspective in governmental politics, but from the perspective of an insider in the "corporate world" who has seen a breadth of corruption far greater than many cynics hypothesize.

I'm aware of the rumored Skull & Bones Society practice of confessing in secret to one's indiscretions, affording the membership with the material for exerting control over one's loyalty. I've had the feeling for a long time that cliques, from grade school to corporate board rooms, eschew the "white knights" and morally incorruptible folks in their midst. The widespread practice of demeaning folks who, without attempting to oppress others, make a continued and sincere attempt to lead an ethical and moral life seems to me to be a plague on our culture unexplained by the prevalence of mere cynicism.

So, I have to wonder whether we've developed a "ladder to success" that's only available to climbers willing to pay the fare of some moral/ethical corruption ... or whether the plutocracy is comfortable in its ability to forge such 'evidence' beyond detection in any event where the need arises.

[bryant69]

1. I guess a secondary question would be are there any politicians without skeletons?

Skeletons in their closets that is. What hold does the plutocracy have over Russ Fiengold for example?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

2. Jimmy Carter

Guy can't pound a nail straight to save his life...

[TahitiNut]

5. He confessed to "lusting in his heart."

Maybe that's enough? Maybe there's more? :shrug:

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

11. I seriously doubt it...

From everything I've ever read about the guy, written by people who have worked with him, that doesn't seem very likely.

[TahitiNut]

3. Would they be the "exceptions that prove the rule"??

There are always exceptions to any rule ... and my poll tries to ascertain whether we see a rule.

I suppose I should have been more diligent in avoiding any inference that it's a "all or nothing" question ... since it's axiomatic that any question including an "always" or "never" can be answered as False.

[cali]

4. Sure,

None of the prominent politicians from my state have skeletons in their closet. In a state this small you know who does and doesn't and Pat Leahy, Bernie Sanders, Peter Welch and Howard Dean don't have skeletons. Pat and Bernie have been in Congress for a long time and neither is rich. And I've never heard a whiff of scandal about any of them. Of course it could be said that they don't count because they're from such a dinky state.

[TahitiNut]

7. It'd help of you updated you profile to indicate "State: Vermont"

Just because I'm smart enough to remember :evilgrin: doesn't mean everyone who reads your post would recall.

I apologize if that seems condescendingly chastising .. that's not my intent. It's just a pet peeve of mine that when people post "my state" or "here" and don't set their profiles to offer the context it's a bit inconsiderate of readers, many of whom are not members of DU.

I have to wonder whether people whom I've regarded as "squeaky clean" are repentant but still having baggage. Like I say, I've sure been surprised often enough to know I'm nowhere near infallible in my assessments. It's just another reason I tend to avoid climing on the Canonization/Demonization bandwagons ... and merely focus on my evaluation of the specific acts and issues, not the person.

[Uncle Joe]

6. I believe it's a combination of the first and third answers.

If you're not a member of the clique, you need to be squeaky clean, if you're a member, corruption is forgiven, maybe even encouraged on some levels.

I also believe the adage of power corrupting and absolute power corrupting absolutely whether you're a member of the clique or not.

[EFerrari]

8. No, and that's why I'd never run for office. The closet is scary enough.

[cloudythescribbler]

9. No -- the REQUIREMENT of having something on them is the "dirt SYSTEM" --

apparently it is more widely discussed here than most places -- it also applies to any position of importance in OTHER spheres as well as politics.

Those involved don't call it "the dirt system"; they call it 'serving' and 'honor' and 'respect and responsibility' -- but the shit is still the same.

[cloudythescribbler]

10. It's the WHOLE SYSTEM: unless the powers-that-pee have dirt on you, you don't go anywhere

apparently it is more widely discussed here than most places -- it also applies to any position of importance in OTHER spheres as well as politics.

Those involved don't call it "the dirt system"; they call it 'serving' and 'honor' and 'respect and responsibility' -- but the shit is still the same.

This type of system is seen as somehow social and part of 'accountability' in the total sense which people should 'trust', but as I've shown over the years, the blacklisting of whole issues (eg a mass movement in the US to end absolute poverty, an effective peace movement that canvasses door-to-door, etc) belies all the justifications, and reveals the system for simply the elite sponsored repression (with a halo of bogus justification, trashing of critics, "Christian" overtones, etc)that it is.

[bean fidhleir]

12. The same arrogance drives both the ambition and the disregard for "rules" (nt)

[lonestarnot]

13. Was client #9 fucking a skeleton named Christin?

:shrug:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. Maximilien Robespierre was "The Incorruptible". Then Lord Acton's axiom kicked in.

The problem with being a "leader" is that it requires, inevitably, throwing someone under the bus just to preserve power. Or, in Robespierre's case packing them off to the Guillotine for a very short haircut.

As I see it, it is the responsibility (usually shunned) of the citizenry to NEVER "trust" the leaders, no matter how fine and beneficent their stated ideals are. Because they always have fine ideals whether it's the CEO of some corporation "protecting" the shareholders by laying off people; the Fuhrer "protecting" the state from Bolshevism and the Jews; or, Il Duce making the trains run on time; or, Bush and a compliant congress "protecting" us from "terrorists" by tapping phones and killing people.

[bean fidhleir]

15. Maybe we should get into a position where we can put into place

*structural* safeguards against despotism. By which I mean automatic legal processes that cannot be subverted except by thousands of people choosing to ignore their duty.

[undeterred]

16. Russ Feingold.

That's all I have to say.