Do unethical trends in Congress mean it's time for a new American Revolution?
Will unethical trends in politics lead to a revolution at the ballot box in 2012?
Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons
Editor's note: This post is part of a series by Dr. Baker on Our Values about core American values. This week Dr. Baker is discussing the political scandal involving New York Rep. Anthony Weiner — and exploring the larger issues political scandals represent.
As you’ll read today, polling shows most voters see an unethical trend in our political leadership — but what do you think? All things considered, have the ethical standards of politicians sunk to a new low? Anthony Weiner, John Edwards and Arnold Schwarzenegger are three recent cases to support the claim that ethical standards have sunk to a new low.
A new poll commissioned by The Hill shows more than two-thirds of American voters think that the ethical standards of politicians have fallen over the past generation. A majority (58 percent) say most members of Congress are outright unethical. Only one in four voters thinks a majority of Congress have any principles at all.
Many polls over the years have documented our falling confidence in government and trust of those in political office. The Hill poll confirms this trend, showing that most Americans think most politicians are unethical and disapprove of their job performance.
And one political party doesn’t get better marks than another. Voters equally distrust Republicans and Democrats.
Are women politicians less prone than their male counterparts to unethical behavior? Let’s make that question more concrete. Is it harder to imagine a Congresswoman’s “Weinergate” than a Congressman’s? Is it less likely that a woman politician would send lewd photos or engage in sexting?
The Hill poll didn’t ask a question that specific, but they did ask about perceived differences in the trustworthiness of men and women politicians. While most voters (60 percent) said they didn’t see a difference, a significant minority did. Thirty-three percent said that men in political office are less ethical. A mere 5 percent said men in political office were more trustworthy.
Could it be time for a revolution?
That may sound a bit drastic. But almost half (45 percent) of likely voters say the gap between the governed and those who govern is as wide now as it was between England and the American colonies at the time of the American Revolution, according to a new Rasmussen Reports poll.
Republicans are more likely to feel this way, while Democrats are less likely. Almost half (47 percent) of Independents — who can swing an election one way or the other — believe the gap now is as big as it was then.
Eight of ten members of the current Tea Party — whose name harkens back to the time of the Revolution — agree that the gap between rulers and the ruled is as big now as it was in the 18th century.
Revolutions can take different forms. One is a revolution at the ballot box. As we discussed last week, a Gallup poll finds that the majority of Americans feel the two major political parties don’t represent the American people and would like to see a third party in the mix.
What might happen in a three-way runoff? Would it indeed be a revolution? Or would it support the status quo?
Rasmussen conducted a thought experiment to find out — posing this question to likely voters: “Suppose the Tea Party Movement organized itself as a political party. When thinking about the next election for Congress, would you vote for the Republican candidate from your district, the Democratic candidate from your district, or the Tea Party candidate from your district?”
How would you vote in that situation?
In this hypothetical three-way contest, the Rasmussen poll found that Democrats come out ahead, getting 40 percent of the vote. Republicans get 21 percent, the Tea Party gets 18 percent, and 21 percent are undecided. The presence of the Tea Party candidate didn’t cause a revolution. It spoiled the Republican’s prospects.
Do you think the ethical standards of politicians have sunk to a new low?
Are you ready for a revolution?
Would you favor a third-party candidate?
Dr. Wayne E. Baker is a sociologist on the faculty of the University of Michigan Ross School of Business. Baker blogs daily at Our Values and can be reached at ourvaluesproject@gmail.com or on Facebook.
Comments
Technojunkie
Fri, Jun 17, 2011 : 2:56 p.m.
There won't be a separate Tea Party party, unless the Democrats keep running fake "Tea Party" candidates. Their recent stunt in New York where a wealthy Dem spent $3M of (presumably) his own money to successfully spoil a special election suggests that they aren't done yet. It was obvious from the start that a real third "Tea Party" party would be self-defeating. Winning primaries and knocking out RINOs is the best strategy. Will there be a revolution at the ballot box? Maybe, but I doubt it. Too many people are addicted to Big Brother. The Tea Party movement is making a valiant effort though. Will there be a traditional, violent revolution? I doubt it, but if the current regime is successful in crashing the dollar and economy as they appear determined to do there's no telling what will happen. There is a chance of seeing something akin to the fall of the Soviet Union. Imagine what will happen if there is a collective awakening that there is absolutely nothing tangible backing the paper dollars in your pocket and electronic dollars in your bank and their value goes to zero. The resulting chaos and civil unrest could lead to a restoration of power to the individual states from a dramatically shrunken federal government. Or, it could lead to a fascist dictatorship where the gloves come off and Big Brother really clamps down, to the applause of city folk who become dependent on federal food distribution for survival.
Technojunkie
Sat, Jun 18, 2011 : 3:09 p.m.
clownfish, when you run $1.6T/year deficits and have the federal reserve print most of that out of thin air, monetizing the debt, you're undermining the dollar. The deficits run under Republican administrations were dangerous enough but even the most wild-eyed supply sider would never run perpetual deficits this large, and at least we got decent economic growth in the bargain. Most of Asia has figured this out and is accumulating gold as quickly as they quietly can. "Rural white folks" have a much better chance of growing their own food or at least being in close proximity to food production. Cities are nearly totally dependent on distant others for everything critical. Ann Arbor might not be so bad, the support for local food production is very good from a food security perspective, but I wouldn't want to be on the densely populated urban coasts. I'll take the Koch Bros over Government Sachs any day.
clownfish
Fri, Jun 17, 2011 : 3:18 p.m.
Could you supply some facts to support your idea that "...the current regime is successful in crashing the dollar and economy as they appear determined to do..."? Are you aware that the largest recipients of welfare are rural white folks, not "city folk"? White: 11.6 million of them are on welfare Black: 11.4 million of them are on welfare Source: US Census. Are you aware that "both sides" are running "fake candidates" in elections? "According to letters obtained by Milwaukee Journal Sentinel local leaders in the Wisconsin Republican Party are organizing their fellow Republicans to get enough signatures to place fake Democrats on recall election ballots. The fake Democrats would run in Democratic primaries for the seats that are held by Republican Sens. Randy Hopper and Luther Olsen."-Policitcsusa.com Are you aware that two of the largest donors to the Tea Party are addicted to federal subsides? The Koch Bros receive BILLIONS in tax payer supported subsidies, or money from Big Brother. Do you know that they utilize tax payer owned land to graze their cattle, without paying you a dime for the privilege? Do you know that they use Big Brother to exercise eminent domain so they can build private piple lines? TECHNO, it appears that you listen to one sides propaganda and take it as fact. If I were you I would question the ethics of such campaigns against Truth. Both sides do it, I am making no excuses for anybody, but it is truly funny to me to read your outrage against only one side, especially when your "facts" are questionable.
clownfish
Fri, Jun 17, 2011 : 1:06 p.m.
I am not convinced that todays politicians are any more ethically challenged than in the past. Tea Pot Dome, Watergate, Iran Contra, Koreagate, Crédit Mobilier of America, Keating Five etc. As mentioned above we have more information available faster than ever so the voters are swamped with scandal du-jour. As soon as one scandal becomes boring another takes it's place. If we had had the internet back in the hay day of JP Morgan and the Robber Barrons it would have looked similar to today, or worse. The biggest problem, IMHO, is the legal corruption of our political system, abetted by the secrecy allowed under current law. I really don't care who politicians have sex with, I care who is buying them off. The Revolution I would like to see is a return to not allowing Citibank and Matti Moroun to give unlimited money to PACS and ad campaigns meant to obfuscate and confuse voters. A law that requires donors to tell us who they are, how much they give and to whom.
bunnyabbot
Thu, Jun 16, 2011 : 8:25 p.m.
I'd say morals seem to be way off from where they once were, sure people did immoral things before but they are more seen in society and accepted as normal now. Parenting has slid, just as ones feelings of responsibility to their family has. Less people affiliate themselves to a Church, the Church was a community and an extention of the family, a place where people could take care of others and respect others. The more people left the church the less connection they felt to be a responsible towards others in their words, actions and behaviors. A school or government cannot fill this void. Even those that are non Churchy or choose not to be affiliated with a religion have this disconnect. Even if you don't have or share a faith it is interesting to go to a service to see how members of a Church behave towards other people (even strangers just visiting for a day).
PittsfieldTwp
Thu, Jun 16, 2011 : 5:42 p.m.
Is this really a progressive moral change for the worse, or rather a change in information accessibility? So much more news is available now and can be spread quicker to more people than before thanks to the internet for the purpose of broadcasting as well as research. The other thing is social networking now makes it much easier for a politician to mistakenly expose discretions to more people quicker. We have all heard these kinds of stories about past presidents, even founding fathers. And these things from written word during a time that people just did not mention these things. Or at least that can be assumed if we think morality is getting worse.
a2miguy
Thu, Jun 16, 2011 : 4:19 p.m.
@Tom Smith - Well said. I'll add this: The internet, particularly the emergence of Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter are entirely responsible for the perception that ethics among politicians has sunk in recent years. The article fails to even mention this. It is human nature, coupled with a 'what have you done for me lately' mentality that no doubt causes people to respond to polls in the way they do. They vote "yes, politicians have sunk to an all time ethical low" simply because of the availability of information and the speed with which it is distributed. In short, if anyone thinks that politicians are suddenly sleeping around, having illegitimate kids, doing naughty things in public restrooms, etc., more often than before, they are certainly dilusional. The difference is we all know about it. Also.... what, exactly, does the concept of adding a third political party to the mix have to do with any of this? Surely the author doesn't believe that the addition of a third party would suddenly render politicans more ethical on the whole. You can cite all the stats and polls you want. The analysis in this piece is shortsighted.
Tom Smith
Thu, Jun 16, 2011 : 3:39 p.m.
A sociologist. In the school of business. Bluntly, I'd have thought you would be a little more on top of things. For I think you are a part of the problem -- part of the huge distraction away from the REAL ethical standards. We are currently in three wars, two of which were off the books for years. The financial system has been broken, and the crooks who broke it with their dubious "financial products" made out like bandits, literally, with the government picking up the tab. And now they threaten to lower the government's bond ratings. Thanks, S&P. We are polluting our only biosphere to the point of poisoning ourselves into extinction. We have nowhere to go if we reach a tipping point, and some scientists think we already have. Nobody mentions jobs unless they need to score political points. Money is being cut from vital services -- police and fire protection, food stamps, disaster relief, public education, pollution control -- all in the name of tax cuts for the wealthy, bailouts for Wall Street, and balancing budgets that no one cared about just a few years ago. People have to choose between health care or food. Or which bill to not pay this month. The Republican presidential candidates are liars and madmen. One of them, Newt Gingrich -- well, we all know the tales of Newt's multiple marriages. And how he was forced to resign while impeaching Clinton because he himself was doing the same thing (as was his successor). And you think ethical standards of politicians have sunk because of Weiner, Edwards, and Schwartzeneggar? You're a touch behind the times, sir. Open your eyes. This isn't obscure stuff -- it's right there, in the news every day.