Using lobbying and lobbyist as credible and legitimate examples of corruption in government is either lazy critique or it's disdain and contempt for the public and voter insight.
I mean think about it. The whole argument against lobbyist is built on the presumption of corruptive influence or a sort of nefarious quid pro quo! And it essentially undermines the premise of democracy in a Republic, where voters elect people due to confidence in their judgement. Because an elected official has to be trusted to govern and decline overtures of official has to be trusted to govern and decline overtures of a lobbyist quid pro quo.
What is lobbying? It is simply a presentation of a point of view based on a specific and narrow interest irrespective of means. There is nothing wrong with interest in the general or specific sense and it's defense. It is up to leadership and governing elements to determine what is strategically practical and conductive to the fundamental pursuit of the maximal realization of the human condition. It is up to the social-dynamic to hold government accountable.
The lobbyist critique is a reactionary form of policing that intrinsically accepts that the human condition is incapable of progressive judgement without coercion.
By Apropos
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment