CORRUPTION WATCH-Why do we continue to call elected officials "public servants" when in fact most of us are fully aware that they do not serve us at all? The fact that they are elected officials does not make them our servants. A servant is one who looks out for the best interests of those he has pledged to serve. This is clearly not the case as we examine the elected officials that are representing us.
What we actually have are "contributor servants" because that is who the elected officials are serving. Any benefit that somehow accrues to the general public is generally by accident or an unavoidable result of their actions. Contributions given by organizations, which cannot vote, are given with the expectation of some benefit.
The fact is that we all serve those who pay us. As a worker it is your job to keep your boss happy because he is the one who controls your check. As a professional it is my job to keep my clients happy because they are the ones who pay me. As a professional I am given a certain degree of latitude because they pay for my advice.
When the media says that someone is a servant you get the impression that they are like a household servant who is there to serve the family. Politicians are always talking about how they love to serve the public. They go from office to office on a local, state and national level in order to continue the well-paid jobs for which no true ability is really necessary. Nice salaries and lucrative pension plans are only part of the rewards. The ability to spend non-taxable campaign contributions on themselves is another perk of the government gray train.
The word service is a unjustified misnomer in the case of those elected and sworn to serve the best interests of the general public.. The word gives you unjustified confidence that those serving will really be protecting the best interests of those they are sworn to serve, the public.
A servant may not serve two masters. While the saying may be biblical in its origin, in common law it is known as a conflict of interest. It would be hard to believe that a lawyer could adequately represent both parties in a legal dispute. It is similarly difficult to believe the politicians can serve the contributor base of corporations and special interests and serve the best interests of the general public at the same time. These interests are often mutually exclusive.
Corporations expect to receive tangible benefits for the contributions they make to elected officials campaigns. Why should the general public not expect tangible benefits in exchange for the votes they cast?
{module [862]}
{module [662]}
In order to maximize the benefit of your vote you must use it. Smaller percentages of the population are casting votes each year. You cannot stay at home and expect the government and democracy will take care of themselves. You must start voting for candidates and not simply for political parties. You must begin to vote you best interest of an honest government.
Instead of evaluating elected officials upon their actions we evaluate them based upon reports we receive from the media. The media's best interests are not served by providing clear and unbiased truth to the general public. The same media receive billions of dollars from the political campaigns of the elected officials. Thousands of laws are passed each year that we know little or nothing about. You can believe that some lobbyist knows every detail of the law, even if your elected official does not.
Perhaps we should look at the candidate who receives the most money from nonvoting entities and those persons who do not live within the district that is represented by the elected official. That elected official is the one least protective of the general public's best interest.
The candidate who receives the most money has the highest obligation to the corporate membership which purchased him during the election cycle. During his entire term in office and in order to retain his office in the future he must provide services that are commensurate with the compensation he has received from those corporations and other non-voting entities, including unions.
The public servant is a fictional character developed by media anxious to explain the fiduciary relationship that is supposed to exist between elected officials and the general public. While indeed elected officials are supposed to be public servants they are in fact anything but.
For other Clinton Galloway articles, go to search.
(Clinton Galloway is the author of the fascinating book “Anatomy of a Hustle: Cable Comes to South Central LA”. This is another installment in an ongoing CityWatch series on power, influence and corruption in government … Corruption Watch. Galloway is a CityWatch contributor and can be reached here. Mr. Galloway’s views are his own.)
-cw
CityWatch
Vol 12 Issue 73
Pub: Sep 9, 2014
Sidebar
CityWatch Los Angeles
Politics. Perspective. Participation.
19
Sun, May