Shenanigans Special Interests in Washington

Author: Alex Garlick

There's a 16-letter, two-word combo that Democratic candidates John Edwards and Barack Obama say with disgust, as if it were four traditional four-letter curse words crammed into one - special interests. Listening to Edwards and Obama denounce the evil that is special interests makes one think they are denouncing the devil himself, or at least Dick Cheney. In Saturday night's ABC/Facebook debate, Obama even claimed that this is the purpose of a new style of politics: "What I think that we're seeing here in New Hampshire is a hunger for a different kind of politics that is very specific about pushing aside special interests that have come to dominate the agenda and the debate, reducing the power of lobbyists: something that I have done." Not to be outdone, Edwards took an even stronger stance: "You know, I'm the candidate up here who's never taken a dime from a Washington lobbyist in my entire time in public life or a dime from a special interest PAC. The first day that I'm president of the United States, there will be no corporate lobbyists working in my White House."

Unfortunately for these two candidates with a combined service of nine years in the Senate, I think the notion that special interests could simply be "pushed aside" or excluded from the policy process is na've. There is no way a newly elected president is going to rid Washington of all its "special interests" and lobbyists. An office on K Street is just as permanent, if not more so, than one on Pennsylvania Avenue. In many ways, Washington is built to resist change. It is structured to maintain the power of the people in power.

Don't forget who exactly these special interests represent - Americans! Sure, a majority of Democrats may not agree with the NRA, but there are plenty of Democrats in that organization of more than four million members. I liken this phenomenon to the fact that Americans are typically happy with their congressman, but generally disappointed with the actions of Congress as a whole. This is because congressmen represent the wishes of their constituents, and obviously Americans do not agree with each other. Well, millions of Americans pull out their checkbooks when this non-profit group comes calling, so should they really get to lament the presence of special interests in Washington? It's not that Americans dislike special interests, it's just that we don't like other people's interests.

Look at Edwards once again. While he is ignoring special interests, do you think he will forget the Trial Lawyers of America? Edwards is very proud of his time as a litigator, so surely he would not mind their interests being lobbied in the nation's capitol. What about his inspirational story about his father working in a mill town for 37 years? A union is the best chance for a millworker to provide for his family. Will Edwards kick them out of his White House as well?

This is not an endorsement of the influence special interests have in Washington. Dwight Eisenhower warned of a military-industrial complex about 50 years ago that may be driving our foreign policy more than we care to admit. But if a president-elect were to come to Washington intent on just fighting special interests, that is all he would be doing. A good campaign stance is not necessarily a wise policy to follow while governing.

Alex Garlick '08.5 is a Political Science and Economics major from Needham, Mass.