A Scandal Is A Scandal: Or Is It?

December 16th, 2008 | By Sonnie Johnson

I have a couple simple questions. Since the new president elect has promised transparency in his administration, why do we have to wait until he takes office to get it. O.K. This is not really about Barack Obama. It’s more about the scope of scandal.

Here are my questions.

Why will no news organization point out the fact that Blagojevich is a Democrat?

You know the basics of advertising. A company will attach their name to a funny slogan or memorable character in hopes that every time you think of that melody or figure you think of their product. Personally, my favorite is freecreditreport.com. You know the singers that completely change song style each commercial. I look forward to hearing what they will do next.

Anyways, does this example give an answer to my question? Do the news organizations not mention Blago as a Democrat because they don’t want you think scandal when ever you think of the party? Is that fair game for a credible news organization? Hiding or omitting information to further push their cause.

Will you fail to put 1 and 1 together? Will you just assume that this is ploy by some unknown white man to tarnish the name of Barack Obama? I ask this for a simple reason. No matter the cleanliness of Obama in this situation, he is still born and breed in Chicago politics. If this is the norm, do you not believe that some where along the way Barack Obama didn’t have to pay to play?

Another question. Did you realize what kind of scandal each party participates in?

With the exception of Bill Clinton, most sex scandals involve Republicans. I have no problem saying that because it’s true. The party that rallies for moral value is often the party caught with it’s pants down. I heard this on this on a t.v. show once. You find what a man rallies against and you just might find his corruption.

In the same breath, the Democrats are often caught with their hand out. Which kinda throws a monkey wrench in my previous analyzation because they preach putting your hand out. They tell the American people that the government owes them more than truthfulness and transparency. And they believe the same. They are owed more than just the chance and opportunity to serve the American People. They should receive something tangible.

Where does this leave the American people? Republicans following people they believe in a speech but not by the practice of their morality. Democrats having to pay to get a seat at the table to give a voice to those who disapprove of corruption. And Independents in the middle trying to figure out which is less of two evils.

And that is a tough decision to make. A true moral conservative should have serious reservations about supporting someone that will lend credibility to the destruction of our most basic values. A true free liberal should have serious reservations about building a Socialist society when the foundation is steeped in corruption from the beginning. And those in the middle are just praying for a chance to vote without sacrificing too much to either side.

Is corruption nothing more than a necessary evil?

This is a question with to many side to have just a simple answer. First, you have to define corruption. Now Webster has the definition as impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral principle. So what are some real cases of corruption. Those I mentioned above.

If you are morally against same sex marriage because you think it’s going to destroy the traditional state of marriage, then don’t go and cheat on your spouse. Plan and simple. In doing so, you are a corrupt man or woman.

If you are morally against the rich because you don’t think they pay their fair share, then don’t try to rob or extort those who may not have money but still want to serve in public office. Plan and simple. Where is the integrity in telling a poor man he can’t serve his people because he can’t pay you?

That’s the black and white of it. What about the gray areas? Is Nepotism a form of corruption? Is racial preference a form of corruption? What about situational preference? (O.K. I think I just made that one up but I’ll explain in a moment.) Let’s take them one at a time.

Nepotism is when you give a family member special favor, like a job. Are you compromising your integrity because you want your son or daughter to one day control the business you started? Are you lessening your values by placing a corporation in the hands of your sister’s offspring? Are you down grading your moral value giving your brother a contract to help him start his new business?

No. Unless, those things should be in control of the American People. If you are a Senator giving away contracts to your family when the money comes from tax payers dollars, corrupt. You should never be allowed to hand your child a House seat. I mean are these things so hard to figure out?

O.K. Racial Preference. Are you compromising your integrity in hiring all black woman to work in an urban beauty salon? Is your virtue lessened by only playing Hip Hop music that draws in a black crowd? Does your morality take a hit because you surround yourself with like minded people with hopes of serving those in the community to which you belong?

No. Unless, you hold public office. It is wrong to hire an all white or all black staff when you are holding public office, especially if you have a mixed community. Especially when you campaigned to all those in the community. The moment you decide to shut out any ethnicity, you lose a portion of you moral value and in doing so become corrupt.

What about Situational Preference? Are you compromising your integrity by hiring a man with two kids instead of a high school student that still lives with his mother? Do you lack virtue because you donate money to an organization for battered women because you were once in their shoes? Are you morally stained because you chose to rent your house to a white woman living on the street at a discount price instead of a black college kid that can afford full price?

No. You guessed it. Unless you are a paid public official. You can longer choose what’s best for your mental well being. You have to decide what’s best for the people you serve. All woman are not battered woman, so you also have to contribute to other circumstances. And yes, maybe it is in the best interest of the people to have one less homeless person on the street, so both your conscience and your civil duty can be served with out damaging your morality.

So, Is corruption really a necessary evil? Does it have a legitimate place in our government? Or does it take to much compromised virtue, integrity, and morality from our society?

I think we have every right to expect more from our elected officials. Often it is said that they don’t get paid enough to avoid corruption. I say you pay them more and it’ll cost more to play the game.

So, no I don’t believe it’s necessary. But I do believe it’s inevitable. We are only human. We take the lessons we’ve learned and apply them to all aspects of our life. If you did give your son a job working in your business, why would it be wrong to do the same when you become Mayor? If you did give a contract to your brother even though his bid was higher, why should it be a problem when you get on the appropriations committee?

Because it is. If your son ruins your company, it was your risk to take. If your brother botches a new building, you take the hit. As soon as you choose to serve the American People, the rules change. You are no longer affecting just your legacy, you are now controlling the future of your town, your state, or this country. You should act accordingly. I’m just saying.