When I was but a stripling I thought about money. Probably because I’d read a book by Dostoevsky that talked about how to become wealthy. No sweat if you had wealthy parents; otherwise it took a lot of single-minded, dedicated work. Closed out a lot of attractive options. Seemed a severe limitation on one’s life. I decided upon more modest economic goals, adequate shelter, decently warm, dry and healthy, I do like my dinner. An adequate amount of clothing. I’ve thankfully always been indifferent about cars – getting from point A to point B has always been my only criteria and shank’s mare was frequently good enough and I don’t mind busses at all. Still the way it is, most of the time. A reasonably modest income leaves me free to pursue that which I valued more than lots of money.
Back to wealth. Once a fellow has his first billion, what’s the point of further pursuit? You watch the guys who have it, it’s always more, more, more. Why on earth? I’ve wanted to express that question and come up with a suitable answer most of my life. But ah-ha! It was there all the time. Probably even read it as a stripling without realizing its significance. I found it recently while reading “The Wealth of Nations,” not by eighteenth century philosopher Adam Smith (a good guy) but by P.J. O’Rourke (not so good). Cover said this economist was remarkably humourous. A practitioner of the dismal science as a comedian? Well, I was told that Rush Limbaugh was funny too but I didn’t agree. I don’t think P.J. O’Rourke is either, for exactly the same reason. Wise-ass putdowns of people better than themselves don’t strike me as humor.
But P.J. O’Rourke did me the favor of quoting one paragraph of Adam Smith that perhaps I shall commit to permanent memory. I’m assuming, of course, that O’Rourke is in fact quoting accurately. I don’t keep a copy of ‘The Wealth of Nations’ (the one by Smith) on my shelves.

“ To those who have been accustomed to the possession, or even to the hope of public admiration, all other pleasures sicken and decay . . . . Place, that great object which divides the wives of aldermen, is the end of half the labours of human life; and is the cause of all the tumult and bustle, all the rapine and injustice”.

That seems to answer the question of why people either born to wealth or later achieve it must mess about with stuff they don’t understand, to whit, politics. The framers of our constitution planned that we would choose our best and brightest to take on the job of governing wisely. Instead we often choose to be governed by a parliament of fools. We don’t always know what we’re doing when we go to the polls. Somebody has fooled us. Again and again and again.
We leave our consideration of the Scottish philosopher – with thanks for the pleasure of his thought – and return to our look at money in politics in Oregon. Political operatives; they abound these days. Do note, reader, that I am not speaking of partisan matters here. There are political operators of disparate convictions, I am one myself on occasion. Some political operatives are assuredly in it for profit, others work their butts off not only without collecting a dime but giving liberally of their own funds. Been there, done that.
Of those in it for profit, a goodly number of them choose to begin in college. I am going to speak now of political operatives of a particular party, because they are so active and have been so successful in creating the situation in which we find ourselves today. I’ve spent a lot of time on campuses, and in the central, social area of many if not most campuses there are booths attracting students to fraternities, sororities, volunteer projects, and booths offering membership in the political societies of the major parties.
There is a book by investigative journalist Nina Easton called “The Gang of Five,” which looks at five graduates of the College Republican system. Those five include Jack Abramoff, Grover Norquist, Rex Reed, columnist William Kristol and another chap, the lawyer who destroyed affirmative action. Every one had graduated to the national headquarters of College Republicans in Washington. These were top students – the best and brightest from the best schools, providing you ignore ethical standards. What drew them? Money. More than money. Power. But for the accident of time, Karl Rove might have been in that group – he was a College Republican who also became the national president of the group, but a few years older. These men were given the reward Adam Smith had defined – place, position, power, mass recognition. And, of course, generous funding.
That selection of individuals was chosen solely because they are known; operatives of other parties have not received the same kind of press attention.
Oregon. Perhaps more political operatives per thousand than most other states. Two stand out (just look at the list of Initiatives going through the approval process – 141 of them. Look at who claims authorship – the same names over and over and over). I shall address my attention to two names, Bill Sizemore and Kevin Mannix. And then throw in their good buddy, the guy who bankrolls them, Loren Parks, once of Oregon but of Las Vegas these days.
Two of the Initiatives going through the process of getting on the ballot (collecting signatures of 82,764 registered voters) are authored by the “Bans Public Money for Politics Committee.”and the documents are signed by Bill Sizemore. A recent donation of $125,000 (to pay for the collection of signatures) by Loren Parks is noted. If you look at the list of possible Initiatives for the 2008 ballot listed on ‘Orestar’ you will note that Initiatives 6 and 25 would make public funding of political campaigns illegal.
If public financing of campaigns is such a great idea, who can be against it? Did we answer the question? Why would money and power want to do that? Because money and power don’t want to lose power. Through clever political operatives, money can convert “If I were King” into a close enough approximation of reality. Will money succeed? Stay tuned, November is not that far away. Will money prevail over a good idea? Could well be. Look at what we have in Washington, where the founding fathers once imagined good and wise men.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 27th, 2008 at 7:50 am and is filed under Elections, General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.