By Robert Tracinski
Friday, April 08, 2016
The revelations from the Panama Papers—leaked documents
from a secretive Panamanian law firm that helps political elites hide their
money—have been hitting home across the world, exposing the widespread
corruption of world leaders and their hangers-on.
It ought to hit here, too, because it reminds us of
everything that should give us the heebie-jeebies about Hillary Clinton.
The Panama Papers have simply confirmed everything we
already pretty much knew. This is just the way things work in much of the
world. Clawing your way into high political office means that you have a lot
special of favors to give out, contracts to distribute, land and timber and
shipping deals to approve, and so on. So you dole them out to friends,
relatives, and backers—and they naturally show their gratitude by kicking some
of it back to you. And if you don’t officially get rich—well, mi casa es su casa, what’s a little sharing
between friends? This has long been Vladimir Putin’s method. “In 2010, US
diplomatic cables suggested Putin held his wealth via proxies. The president
formally owned nothing, they added, but was able to draw on the wealth of his
friends, who now control practically all of Russia’s oil and gas production and
industrial resources.” The Panama Papers shed light on the fortune of Putin’s
old friend Sergei Roldugin, who has somehow amassed billions as an obscure
classical musician. Putin knows how easy it is for corrupt officials to live
like kings without officially owning anything, because that’s the way things
worked in the good old days of the Soviet Union.
In most of the world, this is known and more or less
accepted as the way things work. But not traditionally in the US and in the
developed countries of the West, where our governments have been structured,
either from the beginning or over many years of civil service reforms, to
prevent corruption and conflicts of interest. So when they are exposed, it’s a
major scandal. That’s why they’re pretty much ignoring the Panama Papers in
Moscow, but in Iceland, crowds swarmed Raykjavik and forced the resignation of
the prime minister.
And that confronts us with a question: do we want Panama
here?
Because a couple of other names pop up in the Panama
Papers, including those of a few well-known associates of Hillary Clinton:
longtime Democratic Party fixers John and Tony Podesta and Clinton sycophant
Sydney Blumenthal. And why not? Hillary Clinton has been up to her neck in
crony deals from the very beginning. All the way back in 1978, for example, she
indulged a sudden mania for trading cattle futures, from which she made just
shy of $100,000 in less than a year—a lot more money back then than it is now,
and a whole lot for a young couple like the Clintons. She has shown no interest
in commodities trading since, which is surprising considering how successful
she was at it. But maybe not so surprising when you consider that her trades
back then were made under the guidance of an attorney who worked for a large
company that just happened to be regulated by her husband. Gee, that almost
looks like a bribe.
That’s the kind of thing that’s all over the Panama
Papers, and it’s what Hillary Clinton has been doing forever. It’s how the
Clintons suddenly made $100 million in the first few years after leaving the
White House, with nothing to offer the business world but their political
connections. It’s why the Clinton Foundation got massive donations from Russian
businessmen with deals that required State Department approval.
The problem is wider than Hillary Clinton, of course.
Donald Trump has openly bragged about his role in this system from the other
end, as the businessman who buys the influence of politicians. Even Bernie
Sanders, who has been making hay from the Panama Papers, advocates a much
bigger role for government, particularly in regulating international
trade—which is precisely the kind of playground for corruption revealed by the
Panama Papers. Only Ted Cruz, despite playing footsie with protectionism during
the South Carolina primary, advocates a smaller role for government in picking
winners and losers in the economy.
The fact is that the reason official corruption is
rampant across much of the world is not just that they have insufficient civil
service reforms. It’s because their governments have vast, arbitrary powers.
Hillary Clinton is one of the most visible reminders of this kind of wheeling
and dealing among the global elites—and she presents us with the prospect of
bringing the whole sordid system back from Panama and straight into the Oval
Office.
No comments:
Post a Comment