More than five years after President Bush created the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, the former second-in-command of that office is going public with an insider’s tell-all account that portrays an office used almost exclusively to win political points with both evangelical Christians and traditionally Democratic minorities...Well, it will be an early present, if it is true. I'm sure we'll learn more tonight. A question, though, are Evangelicals truly so naïve as to think that the GOP is honest? (Or any politicians?) And thus, should they be surprised that, like all lobbies, they are used when they are needed and cast aside when they hinder political aspirations?
“Tempting Faith’s” author is David Kuo, who served as special assistant to the president from 2001 to 2003. A self-described conservative Christian, Kuo’s previous experience includes work for prominent conservatives including former Education Secretary and federal drug czar Bill Bennett and former Attorney General John Ashcroft...
[he] writes how Karl Rove’s office referred to evangelical leaders as quote “the nuts”…How the White House hugged them…Then described them as “ridiculous” “out of control” and “goofy”…
________________
Technorati tags: Politics
Daniel asked:
ReplyDelete---
A question, though, are Evangelicals truly so naïve as to think that the GOP is honest? (Or any politicians?) And thus, should they be surprised that, like all lobbies, they are used when they are needed and cast aside when they hinder political aspirations?
---
Answers: No, no, and no.
(Of course, I can't speak for ALL Evangelicals--but the ones I know wouldn't trust a politician on either side of the aisle farther than we could throw them.)
What perplexes me is the idea, common to many evangelicals and atheists alike, that a politician is a de facto crook. Why is a senator more dishonest than stocker at Target? Though there may be differences of degree, both will routinely be confronted with moral dilemmas which they have to work through. What's too bad then is that those who would make the best politicians--people committed to principle rather than personal gain--often won't even consider entering the fray.
ReplyDeleteGrynne,
ReplyDeleteYou pose a good point, in the sense that we must all remember that we shouldn't stereotype based solely on what career path someone chooses...that said-- it seems you answered your own question -- people don't go to work at Target because they see it as a position from which they can acquire extra money and power via their influence.
There is a selection pressure within politics -- everyone has influence on everyone else, and these people control multi-billion dollar contracts.
If you're asking why it is that politicians are so much more susceptible to corruption, it's clear. Give me a break, you don't see it?
In your asking if the quality of intrinsic character can be correlated to position, you are right about one thing: many people in many different careers are dishonest. What you seem to ignore that those who have the possibility to use their job itself as a means to dishonesty are much lower, as this requires a bit of "corruption potential", let's call it.
Now, do we agree that politicians have a job with the highest amount of corruption potential, by virtue of their self-oversight, the enormous resources at their disposal, the constant influence of lobbies, etc.?
Anyway, you made a good point. It's just that politics is innately more prone to corruption than Target stockboy jobs. And that's the motivation in going into it for a lot of the scumballs. The job doesn't make them that way -- they are drawn to it because they already are that way.
Do you think, due to grants, politics, etc, that there is a "corruption potential" for people who work in fields of scientific inquiry?
ReplyDeleteGrynne,
ReplyDeleteVery little.
The reason is simple: science works by repeatable results. The examples of falsified data in the past have always been found out for that simple reason -- from cold fusion to cloning to etc.
The scientists do have pressure on them, sure, and that leads some to falsify data. But you will never get ahead in such a way, you will always be caught, and everyone knows it. You can't fake science, it's just a designed system to prevent it.
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteElegantly stated, but I'm left thinking my naivete concerning politics is matched by yours in regards to science. Thanks for the replies.
Grynne,
ReplyDeletePerhaps. Do you care to explain, and support your assertion?
After all, at least I gave you some lines of reasoning as to why I concluded as I did. Maybe you can enlighten me?
I am around scientists all the time, though only in the academic scene...perhaps corporate science is a little "dirtier" b/c patents and such obscure results and you can "get away with" things in the short term -- like those drugs that have had horrible side effects.
Maybe if we said that corruption is possible in the sense of putting "spin" on results, I could agree with you. But as I said, the problem (in academia, at least) is that the data is out there, published, naked for the world to see. Therefore, corruption of the data is very very difficult.
Spin? Sure.
The problem is that too many people won't get off their sorry asses and look it up for themselves, and don't have the background to interpret the data; and people will trust every argument from authority that reinforces their own preconceived notions by carefully selecting those authorities.
Anyway, I invite an explanation, but whatever floats your boat.
I am more familiar with science in the business sphere than in the academic sphere. However, one particular situation I've followed with some interest has been an OSHA requirement concerning Chrome VI exposure in industrial environments. There is quite a bit overlap between business, politics, and academic science on this. Everybody claims to have "science" on their side. The dangers seem ambiguous, the proposed standards arbitrary. But the bottom line is that everyone is out to protect their intrests--OSHA, the unions, the companies selling and using CrVI processes.
ReplyDeleteAnd this is not my nature a bad thing. According to Adam Smith, self-interest is the highest good, right?
I appreciated your analysis of why politics attracts people of a certain mindset... er, I believe "scumballs" was the scientific term, but I think that's only partially true. Any job, any pursuit, really, and my former example of the Target stockboy even fits, though not that well, presents opportunities for corruption. But as one grows older, the stakes get higher. You have a family to provide for. You begin to wonder whether you will leave any mark on history. Maybe you just become jaded. Whatever the case, the voice of that self-interest becomes louder and the voice of principle can easily be drowned out. Who are the idealists? They are usually the young. They have less to lose. They have not yet established so many IOU's. Death, and history's critical eye, seem far off.
So my point is not really that scientists or politicians are corrupt, but rather that most people, whatever their profession, tend to act more according to self-interest and less according to principle as their life progresses.
There were a lot of "I think's" in there, so take it for what it's worth, but my hope is to be one who doesn't abandon principle for self-interest. I trust you are pursuing the same goal.
Uh-oh. Target's lawyers are on the phone.
Does that qualify as e-preaching?
ReplyDeleteI found an interesting story related to the hex-chrome thing here . Of course it might support your contention that repeatability and peer review keep scientists honest more than my contention that they are as susceptible to corruption as a politician. In the short-term though, money talks as loudly in the lab as in the law-courts.