NationStates Jolt Archive

This is sort of related the the US Presidential election, but a more general question.
Both candidates have tried to show they are not part of the "Washington machine," McCain playing himself as a maverick and Obama taking advantage of the little Washington experience he has. I have to say, though, while I don't want Boss Tweed running the government, I don't really have a problem with political machines. They tend to reward merit, are efficient, and are open to the public, allowing people who campaign 24-7 to have a greater impact than those who flip a coin on Election Day. Also, looking at real politicians, the ones who tend to get more done are the ones who know how the machine works: just compare someone like Clinton to someone like Carter, or even Kennedy.

Thoughts? Are the smoke-filled rooms such a bad thing?

EDIT: This was sort of inspired by a recent New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2008/08/11/080811crat_atlarge_lemann) article, about a political scientist who saw the government as a collection of many different interest groups vying for power.

Its the association with pork-barrel spending I don't like and I'm pleased that both candidates dislike it as well.

The problem with political machines is that they're only open to that section of the public which is filthy rich. Or, at least, rich enough to spread some money around. They're also dependent on lobbyists, or, at least, not willing to go without them.
You also get people like Senator Whatshisface from Alaska who tries to spend 200 million bucks on a pointless bridge and doesn't know what the internet is.

Political machines create political stagnation, and that, like stagnant water, breeds parasites, mold and rot.

Which isnt to say that constant, high-speed change is always good either.

The problem with political machines is that they're only open to that section of the public which is filthy rich. Or, at least, rich enough to spread some money around. They're also dependent on lobbyists, or, at least, not willing to go without them.
You also get people like Senator Whatshisface from Alaska who tries to spend 200 million bucks on a pointless bridge and doesn't know what the internet is.
I think that's Ted Stevens (Stephens?), who will be tried for fraud right after the election.

Political machines create political stagnation, and that, like stagnant water, breeds parasites, mold and rot.

Which isnt to say that constant, high-speed change is always good either.

There's a difference between machines and the rich elite, though. Boss Tweed, for example, was the son of a chair-maker. Richard Daley was the child of Irish Catholic immigrants. They were certainly not born into the old boys network, they had to work at it.

A machine is also different from lobbyists. Lobbyists are concerned with issues: opening up land for oil drilling, keeping abortion legal, lowering the minimum wage, etc. A political machine is more interested in their candidate winning, and for that they often have to turn towards the public.