Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Gentility, Lobbying, and Corruption
We need to move on in the course, so I think I will not be addressing in lecture one of the important political practices that gentility helped foster. I explain it much better in print anyway, and we can discuss it here. So, just to make sure everyone gets the point, please read the assigned article on lobbying in the Early Republic and answer these questions: How did the culture of gentility pave the way for the beginnings of lobbying in the United States? Do the activities of men like the Rev. Manasseh Cutler and William Duer right in their midst indicate that the Founders had a bit of a corruption problem? The first question has a definite answer, the second leaves more room for your own interpretation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Question 1.
The culture of gentility paved the way for the beginnings of lobbying in the U.S. by providing the properly refined gentleman with the essential access to legislators and influential members of the government. Furthermore, the true gentleman "lobbyist" of the era was accepted into the good graces of the political elite he intended to influence, by his mere genteel "character," or reputation as we would know it today. Thus, a given individual with the requisite polish and refinement that gave him the required genteel status could obtain the political access and established credibility that set the stage, at times, for all but physically transplanting one's interests into the mind of the legislator he sought to influence.
Question 2.
The activities of men like Rev. Manasseh Cutler and William Duer undoubtedly point to a high level of corruption in the politics of the era. In a general sense, it can be said that the founders were aware of the pervasiveness of corruption in their midst. However, it is less clear, as to their level of awareness and understanding of these specific “proto-lobbying” tactics. It may be more plausible to say that they didn’t fully grasp the effectiveness of such a tactic. Surely though, they must have been able to identify the “interested men” among the formal dinners and dances. This makes it possible then, that they endorsed men like Cutler and Duer, full well knowing that such action may be less than virtuous, and indeed corrupt. It might be more realistic to say that the Founder’s genteel lifestyle and belief system not only contradicted their American ideas of equality and liberty, but also made them, in many ways, close minded.
Gentility was essential in the way lobbying came about because they both used many of the same concepts and ideas. It seemed like back then when things needed to get done there was always at least one person that, if you rubbed him the right way, then you would accomplish whatever it is you were looking to accomplish. This answers the second question in saying that there had to of been a corruption problem among many of the Founders because if they were to be persuaded by a smooth-talking, albeit gentile, reverend and give him what he wanted but not do the same nice favor for others exhibits this. Look at the example of the Scioto Company and what it wanted from Cutler so long as he held his end of the deal. They knew what they were doing was shady and they thought they could trust Cutler, this shows that companies/people during that time were in fact a little dirty in the way they went about things.
Question 1: Lobbying, as it was understood then, certainly appears a direct part of the gentility culture. It consisted of wealthy firms, land owners, etc. many of whom were members of the gentry...and negotiating with individuals in Congress who were of that same culture. This gentile role seems critical in these negotiations, which we would refer to as corrupt today; but in its infancy, gentility and the culture of such was the bridge.
Question 2: I would agree that the founders had a bit of a corruption problem, especially with respects to William Duer. I think they would agree with that, since they forced him to resign from the treasury department. But I definitely believe it was corruption, and borderline embezzlement as it applies to land. Maybe even treason to some degrees, depending on what the U.S. governments plans were over expansion.
Post a Comment