This post has been de-listed
It is no longer included in search results and normal feeds (front page, hot posts, subreddit posts, etc). It remains visible only via the author's post history.
Just observing some of the recent elections in various countries with relatively immature democracies. In general those countries tolerate more questionable practices compared to the US. Yet, for some of the practices that are more scrutinized for potential corruption, it seems that the consensus is that those practices are normal or even encouraged in mature democracy such as the US.
Therefore, in these 3 practices, please let me know if you think these practices have justifications in US elections, if you agree that the corrupted version it is compared to is indeed bad, and if thereâs a false equivalency, where do you draw the lines:
Using welfare as a platform: as far as I know, in the US this is encouraged to give more power to the poor. Yet in countries with less mature democracy, this is heavily criticized by opponent and general public to the point that even supporters denied that their candidate gives more welfare (but they it anyway), how is this not scrutinized as âbribing votersâ?
Family members in public office such as George HW Bush and George Bush: I know that this is also normal in the US but as far as I know it is not heavily scrutinized as in other countries, even as elected officials, how is it not scrutinized as ânepotismâ?
People in power endorsing and campaining for a candidate such as Obama for Clinton: this one I see pro and cons but the consensus is that this is acceptable, this also holds true for people in cabinet position or bureaucratic position campaigning for a candidate, how is it not scrutinized as âabuse of powerâ?
I mean the obvious answer to all of these is "it's fine when we do it but it's bad when other people do it." That kind of double standard has been the norm for politics since there's been a thing we could call politics.
That said, there are situational answers to these.
Using welfare as a platform: as far as I know, in the US this is encouraged to give more power to the poor. Yet in countries with less mature democracy, this is heavily criticized by opponent and general public to the point that even supporters denied that their candidate gives more welfare (but they it anyway), how is this not scrutinized as âbribing votersâ?
Because often it is simply bribing voters. In a number of places, there's literal payments or giveaways for voting a certain way and it's much cheaper to do that in poor neighborhoods.
This does come off a bit like "going on a date is just paying for sex because you're expected to pay and then have sex." Like sure, if you look at it strictly mechanistically you can make that argument but in a real sense it doesn't scan.
Family members in public office such as George HW Bush and George Bush: I know that this is also normal in the US but as far as I know it is not heavily scrutinized as in other countries, even as elected officials, how is it not scrutinized as ânepotismâ?
I mean it is called nepotism in the US. It's also not as common and there's generally strenuous efforts made by candidates to differentiate themselves from their other family members and stake their own claim on politics.
People in the US have called out political dynasties like the Kennedys for decades. I think if you started seeing these types of political families take over more and more of politics you'd see a lot more pushback to them from the US.
People in power endorsing and campaining for a candidate such as Obama for Clinton: this one I see pro and cons but the consensus is that this is acceptable, this also holds true for people in cabinet position or bureaucratic position campaigning for a candidate, how is it not scrutinized as âabuse of powerâ?
I'm not clear exactly how it is an abuse of power. Direct endorsements usually don't sway votes but are more used as an indicator of a candidate's connections with the established political order.
Subreddit
Post Details
- Posted
- 7 months ago
- Reddit URL
- View post on reddit.com
- External URL
- reddit.com/r/PoliticalDi...
I don't think you can come up with a particularly informative "line" per say to delineate between "bribery" and just doing your job.
Again I think this is a more situational question. Like, yes, people in power tend to believe that their way of doing things is the best and are going want to favor people who help them in that degree. If they favor them to the extent that they put their thumb on the scales to help do that, sure that's a problem.
I'd agree that notable people with a platform, be they politicians or otherwise, have an elevated responsibility given that platform but it's also worth remembering that something voters specifically want are signs that their chosen candidate can work well within the extant political context.
Politics is a group effort and the ability to work with other like-minded people is a benefit in voter's eyes. So how does the political establishment broadcast that it accepts a particular candidate without showing favoritism?