One would not think of the name Pat Sajak when looking to refer to a pundit. But since the definition of pundit is a person who gives opinions in an authoritative manner, usually through the mass media, he IS one because of his blog and his commentary in National Review. If one thinks about it, why can’t his opinions be given the same weight as any other pundit? Just because he is a TV game show host does not make him any less knowledgeable about politics than other self-proscribed political analysts.
His posting last week on-line for National Review made sense! It was a reprint of what he had written on http://www.ricochet.com/, a compilation of conservative conversations, that includes such contributors as Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels and Rupert Murdoch, founder and Chairman of News Corp.
Below is what he wrote, followed by my commentary.
Public Employees and Elections: A Conflict of Interest?
None of my family and friends is allowed to appear on Wheel of Fortune. Same goes for my kids’ teachers or the guys who rotate my tires. If there’s not a real conflict of interest, there is, at least, the appearance of one. On another level, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself from nearly half the cases this session due to her time as solicitor general. In nearly all private and public endeavors, there are occasions in which it’s only fair and correct that a person or group be barred from participating because that party could directly and unevenly benefit from decisions made and policies adopted. So should state workers be able to vote in state elections on matters that would benefit them directly? The same question goes for federal workers in federal elections.
I’m not suggesting that public employees should be denied the right to vote, but that there are certain cases in which their stake in the matter may be too great. Of course we all have a stake in one way or another in most elections and many of us tend to vote in favor of our own interests. However, if, for example, a ballot initiative appears that might cap the benefits of a certain group of state workers, should those workers be able to vote on the matter? Plainly, their interests as direct recipients of the benefits are far greater than the interests of others whose taxes support such benefits. I realize this opens a Pandora’s box in terms of figuring out what constitutes a true conflict of interest, but, after all, isn’t opening those boxes Ricochet’s raison d’être?
Who’d have thunk that it would be Pat Sajak who would start such an interesting dialogue? What he wrote makes perfect sense, even though a system could never be implemented where certain voters could recuse themselves from casting a ballot on a self-serving issue.
The conversation has been started. It is now up to us t_ f_n_sh _t.
Sue writes:
ReplyDelete"I totally understand what he is saying, but everyone's right to vote is a big part of our system. The people that would not benefit from it also have the right to vote...I guess that evens it out. "