The Outermost Insider

Washington Political Reporter Ken Silverstein Talks Lobbyists, Lies and Lowlifes

NewsAdam Kovac — Published January 18, 2011

Settling into a chair in the cavernous ballroom of the Hiyatt-Regency Hotel, he somewhat reluctantly agrees to have his photo taken during our interview, noting dryly that he’s usually “the guy in the picture who isn’t smiling.”

As a former Los Angeles Times reporter and Washington, D.C. editor of Harper’s Magazine, you could say that Silverstein hasn’t seen much to grin about in his career. He has delved into the asscrack of the American political system, coming up with stories on the amoral nature of lobbyists, crooked politicians, and the vicious backstabbing that currently passes for American politics. He gained notoriety and courted controversy in 2007 for going undercover as a representative of a company with interests in Turkmenistan—a country with the charming habit of boiling political dissidents. While undercover, he managed to convince two prominent lobbying firms to help shore up the authoritarian country’s political profile.

Far from being shy about his cynicism, Silverstein spoke almost wistfully of his belief that the democratic system, though bruised, bleeding and lying passed out in a gutter, can still survive.

The Link: Do you think that the influence of lobbying is a uniquely American phenomenon, or is this something that affects other governments as well?

Well, I’m much more acquainted with the American system, but from what I understand, […] lobbying as an institution is much more powerful in the States than it is in other countries. [American] politicians are dependent on lobbyists to raise the money for their campaigns. So I think—I can’t speak with absolute certainty about this—but from what I understand, that’s fairly unique.

And so I would say that definitely in the United States, the lobbying community is much more
powerful than elsewhere. I’m a little reluctant to be definitive because I can’t claim to be an expert on the lobbying system in Belgium or Germany, but from what I understand, it’s definitely much more influential in the States than other countries.

TL: So is there a big difference for a country like Canada, where politicians get their campaign money from their party?

That’s completely different. In the States, you can donate to the parties, but to run for Congress, it’s all about raising personal contributions. Other politicians can raise money to give it to you, and the party I think is allowed to give you some funding, but overwhelmingly to run for public office requires getting donations in your name, to your campaign, from private individuals.

TL: Is that universally corrupting? Does it affect every politician in Washington?

I think there are definitely some admirable politicians, but I think it’s the minority. The system has changed so much that you find fewer and fewer. Sometimes I will find that some of the people that I have long admired are not quite as clean as I had hoped. It’s all subjective, of course, but there are some politicians I greatly admire. I don’t agree with them on every issue, but I would generally think they are admirable people who are trying to do good and work hard. They are a minority. The way that our political system works, it’s hard for anyone who really wants to change the system to get into office. You just can’t raise the money.

TL: Why do you think it’s so hard for the public to see that these politicians are indebted to lobbyists or private interest groups?

I think the public does see that. The Obama campaign was a little different. The participation rate went up, and I think that was because you had an African-American president for the first time, which was exciting.

You had eight years of George W. Bush, so there was a great deal of enthusiasm on the part of democratic voters. But we don’t vote much. I think in part it’s because people feel very cynical and jaded about the political system and feel their vote doesn’t matter. The differences between the two parties have narrowed so much. The real major differences are the social issues—abortion or gay rights […] but broadly the parties have merged so much, and I think the public does see that. The Congressional approval rate is stunningly low, and I think in part that reflects the cynicism. ‘Hey, my vote isn’t heard, but people with money can get their point across.’

TL: Do you think that the cynicism is so bad that in two years, the public mood can go from “Hope and Change” to just not giving a shit?

What periodically happens in American politics is you have someone that comes in who appears to be a real breath of fresh air, and a real reformer. [Obama’s] rhetoric was very, very inspiring, and he was a terrific public speaker and orator. He generated a lot of enthusiasm from young people. At the same time, the expectations were always overblown, for two reasons. One, because Obama was never as unconventional as he tried to appear. He’s a middle-of-the-road insider. What made him different was that he was African-American. To be direct, if he was white and he had run on his record, he would have a much harder time selling himself, because there was nothing politically that was exciting about him. But it was genuinely exciting that an African-American could run and win the presidency. I think people were misled into thinking he was much more of an outsider than he ever was. And secondly, it’s always true that an incoming president will face the problem of excessive expectations because the problems are so big and deep. He inherited huge problems with the economy and Iraq and Afghanistan and on and on and on.

I voted for the guy, and I’m glad he won, and I don’t have any regrets over voting for him, because my view is that in American politics, it’s hard not to vote for the lesser of two evils. But I had very low expectations, so I’ve only been mildly disappointed.

TL: Do you think that politics is inherently corrupt?

To a certain extent. That’s the whole idea of having checks and balances on government: that people with power tend to abuse it, and politics is all about power. I think American politics is more corrupt because the role of money is so extreme. Yeah, it’s inherently corrupt and we have a particular system that makes it more corrupt. Not to venerate the founding fathers of the United States, because, boy you could have a field day with them, but the whole idea of checks and balances, that’s well founded.

TL: What kinds of reforms are possible in a system where fundraising and lobbying are protected under first amendment rights?

I don’t disagree [that freedom of speech can hinder political reform]. I don’t happen to agree with court rulings that equate freedom of speech with fundraising for politicians and lobbying. You’ve got to figure out ways to reduce the influence of money and private groups in politics to make the American political system more meaningful. It’s a big challenge, and I don’t have the answer, because it definitely limits the source of reforms one can make.

I’m obviously pretty cynical about politics, but I don’t believe that people should disengage. I don’t believe the situation is completely hopeless and if I were completely cynical, I’d just give up entirely. Sometimes I guess I’ve thought about it, but I think it’s a worthy goal.

I lived in Brazil for a while, and a saying there was “It’s all flour from the same sack,” all politicians are the same. And then the government there reduced poverty at a faster rate there than anywhere else in the world over the last seven or 10 years, while in the States income inequality has been growing faster than anywhere else. So politics matters. I wouldn’t say that all politicians are the same or that it’s all hopeless. The whole point of writing about politics is because you’re interested and engaged
with it.

This article originally appeared in Volume 31, Issue 19, published January 18, 2011.