Ask Not What You Can Do for Your Country; But What Your Country Can Do for You

Everyone associated with Alaska’s politics is corrupt – and have been for decades - goes the Steven’s Camp rationalization. So why pick on poor ol’ Ted?

I am willing to stipulate to the corrupt for decades part; indeed the culture of corruption that permeates Alaska’s politics is a very serious problem as demonstrated on a damn near weekly basis by the FBI and U.S. Department of Justice. Indeed I am even willing to accept some small portion of guilt for this culture myself.

Back in the days when I was a young buck working for the legislature, I confess that on more than one occasion I accepted gifts from lobbyists that I knew at the time I should not accept. I don’t recall that it was illegal for me to accept these gifts – but I certainly knew it was unethical in any common sense usage of the word. And I am not even counting the countless drinks and suppers I was provided gratis by my lobbyist pals at countless happy hours and other get-togethers that, if summed, and stated in 2008 dollars, would be quite impressive I’m sure.

When I was five or six or thereabouts, I used to get furious at my mom when she would not allow me to do things that my little pals had permission from their parents to do. I specifically recall my indignation that I was not allowed to walk uptown with my friends to go to the Saturday matinee – unaccompanied by any adult. But as mom always pointed out – what other kids were doing was irrelevant – she knew what was right and that was that.

Being ethical (much less NOT breaking the law) is pretty much that simple at root. You really don’t need a doctorate in philosophy to know the difference between ethical and unethical behaviour. And if you’re ever confused, you can always just ask my mom.

In retrospect, what really astounds me is not that Alaska’s pols have gotten caught-up in this dysfunctional political culture; but that the entire government, including law enforcement, acquiesced as well. The State’s Department of Public Safety and Department of Law have been supine the past several decades on matters of public corruption - in both Democratic and Republican Administrations. Yet certainly no one with an IQ over 75 who spent more than a couple of hours in the Capitol during a legislative session could have failed to pick-up on the peculiar influence of certain oil company and private prison personages.

But I belabor the point. The point simply being it doesn’t make a damn bit of difference if others are corrupt, you are responsible for your own actions and it’s time for Uncle Ted to pay the piper.

Finally (thank God, I’m weary of this subject), just a brief mention of another facet of our Senior Senator’s shortcomings that really galls me and has not received any significant play in the press. Simply put, it is that there’s more to being a U.S. Senator than serving as a milch cow to your constituents.

The United States Senate is a fundamental institution with an essential role to play in the somewhat complicated scheme of checks-and-balances among the three branches of our federal government. For much of the past several decades Senator Stevens was a senior member of the majority party. He was Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

To my mind, he therefore has much to answer for relative to the Senate’s failure to provide meaningful oversight of the Executive – particularly the deranged policies of our current President. To cite just one example, it would have been perfectly possible for Senator Stevens to support the President’s underlying Iraqi war policy; but still exercise due diligence relative to the appropriation of funds for that purpose.

But no. Senator Stevens, like the majority of his Republican colleagues in the Senate, preferred to rewrite the Constitution – to redefine the separation of powers to simply mean that the President got to make all policy both foreign and domestic – while Congress would content itself with the looting of the treasury.

One of the questions being asked prospective jurors in Ted’s upcoming trial is whether or not they have any problem sending an 84-year-old to prison. I hope and trust the answer the prosecutors are looking for is “no.”