Connect with us

Featured Columnists

A Disquisition on Greed in Politics, Part 1: Diagnosing Greed in Politics

Samuel McLure

Published

on

By Sam McLure
Alabama Political Reporter

 

“One who is greedy stirs up strife . . .”

Solomon

 

Advertisement

“The World is One Big Whorehouse”

Greed in politics. Everyone knows it’s there. A reporter’s favorite hobby is exposing a politician’s hypocritical greed. Yet, tracing the ways of greed in politics is like tracking a snake in a boulder field. Its trail is elusive, and the more you hunt it, the more it seems to hunts you. In fact, greed, like lust, seeks to daily corrupt all of our motives and actions.

The Apostle Paul zoned-in on the severity of greed, when he said that those whose lives are marked by it cannot “inherit the Kingdom of God.”  John Owen, that political firebrand of the English Parliament explained that, “[t]here is nothing that the Scripture doth more severely condemn, nor denounce more inevitable punishment unto” than greed.

When the wild man of the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther, spoke on greed, he held no punches: “The world is one big whorehouse, completely submerged in greed,” where the “big thieves hang the little thieves.” Jesus himself reserved his harshest words for the political rulers of his day, the Pharisees, who loved to look polished on the outside, yet “inside [were] full of greed and wickedness.”

Diagnosing or identifying greed-in-action is a daunting task. “Greed nowadays has come to be viewed as talented, smart, careful stewardship,” and this has led as well to “sin in general [being] dressed up to look like virtue and not vice.”

David Mathis, from Desiring God ministries, defines greed as “our inordinate desire, our excessive love, for wealth and possessions, for money and the things money can buy — and even for self-esteem, security, status, and power.”

While the accumulation or possession of material wealth, power, and prestige are never condemned in Scripture, what is condemned is obsession with them, and willingness to violate the rights of others to get more.  Rev. Jeph Guinan of Cornerstone Presbyterian Church explains that, “greed is never satisfied and always afraid.  The one thing the person with lots of money and power wants is more money and power. And, the one thing the person with lots of money and power is afraid of is, losing their money and power. They will do anything to anyone to avoid such loss. Those in power will manipulate the system to any end in order to maintain AND GROW their power and financial status.”

 

Greed in Politics is No Surprise

It comes as no surprise then, that greed is present in politics. Because greed, in varying degrees, is present in every person’s heart, and must there be personally combatted, the most difficult question of government is thus how to restrain greed in politics. To this end, the founders of our peculiar American government proposed a Constitution that, if adhered to, would present the most effective vehicle, conceived by man, to restrain greed in politics.

George Washington, skeptical that the Constitution could do just that, restrain greed in politics, lamented that if the American people “would not do what the Constitution called on them to do, the government would be at an end, and must then assume another form.” What would lead a political leader to fail to do what the Constitution called on them to do? What would lead them to violate the bounds of the Constitution, set in party by the 10th Amendment, to gain more power, money, or prestige?

In short, the answers is greed.

 

Four Principles of Greed Politics

In the 1840’s U.S. Senator Calhoun observed realities in government that are still true today:

“I have no doubt from what I daily see that our whole system is rapidly becoming a mere money-making concern to those who have the control of it.” And that “every feeling of patriotism is rapidly sinking into a universal spirit of [greed].”

Calhoun went on to observe that both parties are fundamentally at odds, not over social issues of justice, mercy, and equity, but over control of the government’s tax revenue:

“The Federal Government is no longer under the control of the people, but of a combination of active politicians who are banded together under the name of Democrats or Whigs. And whose exclusive object is to obtain the control of the honors and emoluments of the government. They have the control of the almost entire press of the country and constitute of vast majority of Congress and of all the functionaries of the Federal Government. With them a regard for principle or this or that line of policy is a mere pretext. They’re perfectly indifferent to either and their whole effort is to make up on both sides such issues as they may think for the time the most popular, regardless of truth or consequences.”

Let’s pause to highlight several of Calhoun’s observations. As far back as 1845, one of America’s greatest political minds[1] observed four principles of greed in politics that are still true today:

  • Interests of greed, “business interests,” have hijacked the whole political system;
  • The labels of the two dominant parties (Democrat and Republican, today) are really just manipulative mantles worn by this band of “active politicians” who are voraciously seeking benefit and control of the tax revenue;
  • This cohort of greedy “active politicians” are so powerful as to control most of the Government and the media; and
  • Most importantly, this cohort of greedy snakes manipulates the populous with social issues, in order to gain favor and stay in power.

These four observations of greed in politics are just as true today as they were in 1845.

 

“The Most Dangerous Power Known To Man”

Rep. David Crocket observed in the 1830’s that “the power of collecting and distributing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power known to man.”  Crocket was notable in resisting the urge of the Federal Government to dispense with tax revenue in a manner that surpassed those powers delegated to them by the States – no matter how virtuous the cause may present.

The allure of controlling ill-gotten tax revenue of government was exponentially magnified with the facade-passing of the 16th Amendment in 1913 (not to mention its surreptitious implementation) and the shadowy Federal Reserve the same year.  1913 was the culmination of four generations of work by the Greed Party; 1913 was the year that these “active politicians” could avail themselves of virtually unlimited money and power from the “whole system,” driving it deeper into a “mere money-making concern.”

 

The Puppet Show

This essay began with a quote from an ancient Middle-Eastern ruler, Solomon, “A greedy man stirs up strife.” What Calhoun and others have observed is that the conflict between the two-party system, the Republicans and the Democrats, is a farce – a puppet show. The Greed Party “stirs up strife,” in order to gain the advantage of the tax revenue. 

Certainly there are a few people in positions of power within the Republican Party who genuinely care about “x, y, z” issue; and certainly there are a few people in power within the Democratic Party who genuinely care about “a, b, c” issue.  However, the far more powerful force behind both parties is the same: the Greed Party.  The Greed Party pulls the social-issue strings of both parties like a puppet master.

The great trap of the Greed Party is that whatever noble goal is attained by a Republican politician or a Democratic politician, only serves to fuel the Greed Party’s cupidity. Many politicos have theorized that the Republican Party’s “Conservative” brand – including the pro-life, traditional marriage, and religious liberty platform – was created by the Greed Party in order to garner enough votes to gain control of the tax revenue. The same criticism can be levied against the Democratic Party’s “Progressive” brand – including criminal justice reform, drug-policy reform, and civil rights initiatives.

What must emerge is a solution, not within the system, but without the system.  A third party must emerge whose strings are not pulled by the Greed Party. A third party must emerge whose fight for political good is not directed at opposition to the Republicans or to the Democrats, but rather directly at the serpentine Greed Party itself.

 

For the Noble of Heart in Politics

Scottish preacher, John Knox, observed that “You are working against your king just as much if you allow him to be a tyrant as if you oppose him.” For the noble of heart in politics, for those not ensnared in the trappings of the Greed Party, for those to whom it is not too late, I challenge you to consider this – Do you want you blood, sweat, and tears to be played like a puppet master for the fulfillment of the Greed Party’s own selfish ambitions?  Is your work within the two-party system allowing your government to continue to be a tyrant?

The maxim that “A greedy man stirs up strife” is only half the proverb. The second half presents the stark contrast for us to consider today, “the one who trusts in Jehovah will be enriched.”  True riches do not come from creating strife and profiting from it. True riches come from the peace of apply Jehovah’s wisdom.

 

In Parts II and III we plan to examples of greed in Alabama politics, and potential solutions.

[1] I say this with complete repudiation of his grotesque promotion of the American slave trade.  I lament that he did not equally spend his intellect on eradication of this enterprise. There are no more heroes, but Christ. To quote any man, is to risk “guilt by association.” I hope the reader will be generation with that judgment here.

 

Continue Reading

Featured Columnists

Opinion | Men are pigs; yes, they are

Joey Kennedy

Published

on

So it’s happening again.

A woman accuses a man of sexually assaulting her many years ago, this time while she and the man were in high school, and the voices, mostly those of men (but a few women, too) declare openly that she should have come forward earlier.

Why wait years, even decades, before making such damaging accusations? If it’s true, she should have come forward right after the assault took place. Right?

Federal judge Brett Kavanaugh, nominated to fill a U.S. Supreme Court vacancy left by Justice Anthony Kennedy, is being accused by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford of sexually assaulting her while they were at a party in high school. As usual when a woman comes forward with such accounts, the men – in this case, Kavanaugh and those supporting him – lash out at the accuser and deny anything ever occurred.

We’ve seen this many times before: Movie mogul Harvey Weinstein, CBS boss Les Moonves, former Alabama chief justice Roy Moore, Fox News chief Roger Ailes, television journalist Charlie Rose, comedian Louis C.K., even our notorious president Donald Trump and many others, including Anniston Star publisher H. Brandt Ayers.

Advertisement

The Ayers case is especially close to me, because Ayers assaulted my wife, Veronica, by striking her 18 times on her butt with a metal ruler in the Star newsroom more than four decades ago, even as she fought and yelled at him to stop. In Veronica’s case, another Star reporter witnessed the assault.

Veronica only went public earlier this year, but I knew about the assault before we were engaged to be married more than 40 years ago. Throughout our marriage, I’ve seen first-hand how that abuse altered her outlook and left scars on her confidence. After Veronica went public, other women who had been assaulted by Ayers came forward.

Veronica had many good reasons not to go public at the time, not the least of which was that Ayers controlled her newly burgeoning journalism career.

At first — like just about every other man accused of similar disgusting behavior — Ayers denied anything happened. “I have no memory of the alleged incidents,” Ayers said when first contacted by journalist Eddie Burkhalter, who resigned from the Star because the newspaper would not pursue the story.  Ayers then said he regretted some things that occurred when he was younger (he was in his 40s). Finally, Ayers admitted to spanking one woman and, about Veronica’s assault, said: “Let the accusation stand.” Ayers then resigned as chairman of the company that publishes the Star.

The #MeToo movement gave Veronica the final bit of courage she needed to go public, and let me tell you, Veronica already was a brave, strong, independent woman.

Amazing Pulitzer-Prize-winning reporting by The Washington Post exposed Roy Moore for the stalker and assaulter he is. Other stories in many different publications, from The New York Times to New Yorker magazine, exposed so many other cads.

So I understand why Christine Blasey Ford kept quiet for so long. She told her husband and her therapist a number of years ago, but only went public after the allegation was revealed as the Senate considers Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination.

Dr. Ford has nothing to gain by making a false allegation, and from my reading of news sources, her allegation comes off as credible, like so many others we’ve heard.

The Senate, controlled by Republicans, has tried to ram Kavanaugh’s nomination through without proper vetting. The vast majority of documents the Senate needs to understand what kind of candidate Kavanaugh truly is was withheld from the Senate. Even this latest allegation was deemed confidential by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

But it’s out now, and it’s possible, if Republicans go forward with a vote on Kavanaugh, we could have two known sexual assaulters on the Supreme Court. Justice Clarence Thomas, remember, was credibly accused of sexually harassing Anita Hill after he was nominated to the court in 1991.

A lot of men, mostly old white men, just don’t see anything wrong with such misbehavior. These are the same men who want to tell women what they can do with their bodies. But because Dr. Ford went public, she and her family have been forced to leave their home, her email has been hacked, and she has received death threats.

When Burkhalter and I wrote about Veronica’s assault by Ayers, comments from some readers were typically misogynous. The women stalked and assaulted by Roy Moore have experienced threats of violence and worse. Men don’t like to be called out for their sexual misdeeds. And when they are, their accusers, no matter how credible, have to pay a high price.

Just the fact that Dr. Ford stepped forward publicly and stands by her account shows there’s more here than Kavanaugh cares to “remember.”

To go forward with Kavanaugh’s nomination would be a travesty. But, sadly, we live in a time of travesties.

Folks, this is not just “boys being boys,” but rather, men being pigs – and a whole lot worse.

Joey Kennedy, a Pulitzer Prize winner, writes a column every week for Alabama Political Reporter. Email: [email protected]

 

Continue Reading

Featured Columnists

Opinion | Maddox is right: The state shouldn’t pay for Bentley’s attorneys

Josh Moon

Published

on

Should the state be footing the bill for attorneys to defend former Gov. Robert Bentley in a wrongful termination lawsuit filed by former Alabama Law Enforcement Agency head Spencer Collier?

Gov. Kay Ivey says it should, that the state has an obligation to do so under the law.

Her challenger for the seat she currently holds, Walt Maddox, says no, and that Ivey is wrong about the state’s requirement to do so.

The war of words about the lawsuit started last week, when the Maddox camp questioned why the state was still footing the bill — a bill that’s surpassed $300,000 so far — to defend Bentley. Ivey responded to questions about the payments to Bentley’s attorneys over the weekend, saying it was appropriate to pay the bill, because the law requires it.

On Tuesday, the Maddox campaign issued a press release saying Ivey is mistaken about the law.

Advertisement

And so, here we are.

First things first, let’s back up and explain just what’s going on.

Near the end of his tenure as governor, Bentley had a falling out with Collier over a request the Alabama Attorney General’s office was making of Collier. Basically, the AG’s office wanted Collier to file an affidavit about an investigation that was sort of related to the Mike Hubbard prosecution.

Bentley ordered Collier not to provide an affidavit and to instead tell the AG’s office that the investigation was ongoing.

Collier was concerned that lying to the AG’s investigator would violate the law. (It definitely does.) So, instead, he worked with Bentley’s legal advisor and issued a watered-down affidavit. When Bentley discovered what had been done, he fired Collier.

Collier, in his court filings, claims Bentley then set out to destroy him professionally through an investigation into misappropriated funds in ALEA and a smear campaign that, among other things, alleged that Collier was a drug addict.

So, Collier filed a wrongful termination lawsuit.

Ordinarily, such lawsuits would be kicked quickly by judges because state employees, such as the governor, enjoy immunity from lawsuits that arise from official acts. And in this case, Judge Greg Griffin agreed and dismissed most of the counts in Collier’s lawsuit.

But he also found that some of Bentley’s actions — specifically, the parts in which he retaliated against Collier — fell outside of his official duties. And so, he allowed the lawsuit to move forward. 

You should also know just why we, the taxpayers, are paying for Bentley’s defense in the first place.

The State of Alabama has an insurance program known as the General Liability Trust Fund that is used to pay for the legal defense of state employees who are sued as a result of incidents that occur while these employees are doing their state jobs. It also is used to cover any settlements stemming from lawsuits against state employees.

The official wording from the Code of Alabama says the GLTF will be used to cover “acts or omissions committed by the covered employee while in the performance of their official duties in the line and scope of their employment.”

And that brings us back to the argument between Ivey and Maddox.

Ivey claims that the law says Bentley should be covered. The Maddox camp says that was true up until the point the judge in the case found that Bentley’s actions fell outside the scope of his official duties.

After speaking to a few attorneys, it seems that the Maddox camp is right.

Griffin’s decision to allow the case to move forward, and specifically rejecting the defense’s motion to dismiss on the grounds that Bentley was immune from prosecution, recast Bentley’s position. His actions had to fall outside of the scope of his official duties in order for the lawsuit to proceed, which means the state has no responsibility to cover him.

Of course, there’s one other option here: Ivey could simply settle the lawsuit.

Collier was clearly wronged, and the state has all but admitted as much. The guy nearly went broke because our former governor lost his mind. To continue on with this lawsuit and the defense of Bentley is not just a monumental waste of money, it’s an embarrassment.

And it’s one more example of the political elite in this state operating a system that ensures they’re protected no matter the crimes they commit or the egregious nature of their behavior.

Collier didn’t deserve what happened to him and the rest of us don’t deserve to watch our hard-earned dollars be squandered on Bentley’s high-priced attorneys.

 

Continue Reading

Featured Columnists

Opinion | 1986 Governor’s race

Steve Flowers

Published

on

Since this is a gubernatorial election year, allow me to share an epic Governor’s Race with you.

The 1986 Governor’s race will be remembered as one of Alabama’s most amazing political stories. In 1978 Fob James sent the Three B’s, Brewer, Beasley and Baxley packing. Brewer and Beasley had been permanently exiled to Buck’s Pocket, the mythical destination for defeated Alabama gubernatorial candidates. However, Bill Baxley resurrected his political career by bouncing back to be elected lieutenant governor in 1982, while George Wallace was winning his fifth and final term as governor. Another player arrived on the state political scene. Charlie Graddick was elected as a fiery tough lock ‘em up and throw away the key attorney general. Graddick had previously been a tough prosecuting district attorney in Mobile.

When Wallace bowed out from seeking reelection in 1986, it appeared the race was between Bill Baxley, the lieutenant governor, and Charlie Graddick, the attorney general. It also appeared there was a clear ideological divide. The moderates and liberals in Alabama were for Baxley and the archconservatives were for Graddick. Baxley had the solid support of black voters, labor, and progressives. Graddick had the hard-core conservatives, including most of the Republican voters in Alabama.

The Republicans had gone to a primary by 1986 but very few Alabamians, even Republicans, participated. It was still assumed that the Democratic Primary was tantamount to election. The Democratic Primary would draw 800,000 Alabama voters while the GOP Primary might draw 40,000, so most Republican leaning voters felt that in order for their vote to count they had to vote in the Democratic Primary.

Baxley and Graddick went after each other with a vengeance in the primary. The race was close. Graddick came out on top by an eyelash. He encouraged Republicans to come vote for him in the Democratic Primary. They did and that is why he won. This was not something that had not been happening for decades. Brewer would have never led Wallace in 1970 without Republicans. Fob would have never won the Democratic Primary and thus become governor in 1978 without Republican voters. Basically, Alabama had been a no party state. We still have no party registration law. So how do you police people weaving in and out of primaries without a mechanism in place for saying you are a Democrat, Republican, or Independent?

Advertisement

After Graddick defeated Baxley by less than 25,000 votes in the runoff primary, the Democratic Party did the unthinkable. They convened the hierarchy of the party, who clearly favored Baxley, and declared Baxley the Democratic nominee because they guessed Graddick had won the primary with Republican crossover voters. They paraded experts in front of their committee to testify that Baxley should have won if just Democrats had voted. They boldly and brazenly chose Baxley as the nominee in spite of the fact that Graddick had clearly gotten the most votes.

This move went against the grain of the vast majority of Alabama voters. They felt that Graddick, even if they had not voted for him, got the most votes and should be the nominee. The Democratic Party leadership sloughed it off. They assumed that the Democratic nominee would win regardless. After all, there had not been a Republican Governor of Alabama in 100 years. In addition, the Republicans had chosen an unknown former Cullman County Probate Judge named Guy Hunt. Hunt had no money and no name identification.

The Democratic leaders guessed wrong. The backlash was enormous. The bold handpicking of a nominee who had not received the most votes was a wrong that needed to be righted. Baxley did not help his case any by ignoring Hunt and dismissing him as a simpleton. He mocked Hunt saying he was unqualified because he only had a high school education. Baxley, as politically astute as he was, should have realized that he was insulting the majority of Alabama voters who themselves only possessed high school educations. This created a backlash of its own.

When the votes were counted in the November general election, Guy Hunt was elected Governor of Alabama. This 1986 result gave new meaning and proof to the old George Wallace theory that more Alabama voters vote against someone than for someone. Alabama had its first Republican governor in 100 years. The 1986 Governor’s race will go down in history as a red-letter year in Governor’s races. It was truly historic and memorable.

See you next week.

Steve Flowers is Alabama’s leading political columnist. His weekly column appears in over 60 Alabama newspapers. He served 16 years in the state legislature. Steve may be reached at www.steveflowers.us.

 

Continue Reading

Bill Britt

Opinion | Three cheers for cheaters, conmen and crooks

Bill Britt

Published

on

Lobbyists and others representing special interests give millions to lawmakers in the form of campaign contributions, and it doesn’t even matter if they are legally or ethically right; they are a must.

Not only are these contributions acceptable and expected, in many cases, it is demanded with valued treats.

With millions in contributions, lobbyists and other entities with business before the state are, in fact, buying favors from an elected official and in turn, many of these so-called public servants reciprocate with favorable legislation and other goods not readily available to those who don’t pony up.

What is obvious is there is a pervasive give-to-get mentality that infects much of Montgomery.

A recent email sent by political consultant Brent Buchanan on behalf of Senate President Pro Tem Del Marsh and Senate Majority Leader Greg Reed makes it clear leadership is watching who plays ball and who doesn’t.

Advertisement

Fundraiser or shakedown?

Buchanan is not only a paid operative for state Senate Republicans, but he is also Gov. Kay Ivey’s campaign manager; therefore, his words matter because of who he represents.

Those close to Marsh and Reed think it’s doubtful they approved Buchanan’s indiscreet warning – that money is expected from lobbyists and other interests. But this attitude has become so common under Republican rule over the last eight years that it passes for normal behavior.

Pay-to-play or be sidelined is understood.

It’s tiresome to recall how in 2010, Republicans championed ethics and campaign finance reform only to now have abandoned any pretense of upholding them.

Under the guise of reform, they intend to gut current ethics statutes like a feral hog during the upcoming legislative session. Even now, holding the Republican-appointed Ethics Commission to the strict letter of campaign finance laws has become such a joke that Secretary of State John Merrill is publicly calling out the commission for not doing its job.

Opinion | Alabamians need an Ethics Commission that will enforce the laws

Amazingly, the state’s Republican Party continues to support it’s attorney general nominee, who has clearly violated the state campaign finance laws by blatantly accepting  $735,000 in contributions that are prohibited under the law.

Current Attorney General Steve Marshall, an appointee of disgraced former Gov. Robert Bentley, accepted unlawful contributions from an out-of-state special interest and no one says a word – not the state’s Ethics Commission’s executive director, not the governor or the Republican Party chair.

Add these to what amounts to legal extortion and bribery and a vivid picture emerges of a Republican majority that doesn’t care about the rule of law or civil propriety.

What is the message here?

Shakedowns are fine as long as it’s for our team.

Cheating is okay as long as it’s our team that wins.

Moral character, honesty of purpose and humility of service be damned,

Those who revere power over principle may prosper but never for long where there are individuals who value integrity over gain.

The Republican Party in Alabama used to stand for something, now it seems to cheer for cheaters, conmen and crooks, but perhaps someday it will come back to its senses.

Continue Reading

Authors

Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement

Trending

A Disquisition on Greed in Politics, Part 1: Diagnosing Greed in Politics

by Samuel McLure Read Time: 8 min
0