January 22, 2002
JACK LESSENBERRY
METRO TIMES
733 ST ANTOINE
DETROIT MI 48226
Dear Jack,
In response to your column
of January 16, 2002, a little more precision of analysis is required.
In discussing Enron you claim that this is bipartisan mess because
Enron officials lavished money on both Democrats and Republicans.
Besides the fact that much more money was given to Republicans, you
fail to note that the reason for the bribes is fundamentally different.
Money given to the Democrats is used to corrupt them, to get them
to deviate from their party program. By contrast, money given to Republicans
is to implement their party program, which also explains why so much
more is given to the Republicans.
Kenneth Ley, the President
of Enron, was and probably still is a major proponent of deregulation
and opponent of any governmental function that does not involve war/defense.
That pretty well summarizes the Republican Party platform except when
it comes to governmental repression of the right to choose, civil
rights, and the rights of the criminally accused.
Then the column states,
“this doesn’t mean that business, by definition, is bad.”
Enron proves -- if it proves nothing else -- that all unregulated
business is bad. Kenneth Ley took the ideological position that the
market could solve all problems, that it would reduce prices, improve
service and regulate itself. He was wrong on all counts. The column
states that Enron and Republicans and George Bush II not only were
in bed together but they also got the sheets sticky. That is true
but then to deny that what happened is a direct refutation of that
philosophy is not only naïve, but more importantly is wrong.
When we look at the contributions
to the Democrats, it again proves the invalidity of Republican philosophy.
Money accumulated by big business is used to corrupt the democratic
process, to insure that Democrats violate their own party program,
to insure that they will not speak for the people who voted for them.
This is not simply a bipartisan mess; it’s proof that the market
economy, left unregulated, leads to corruption and undemocratic representation.
This is not simply the
result of a few bad eggs in an essentially “good” system.
It is the inevitable result of leaving the market economy to its own
devices. Apparently, you are willing to sacrifice the free exchange
of ideas, the right to vote for individuals without corruption, and
allow thousands of individual workers to lose their pensions and livelihoods
for the “creative creation of products”. If that is your
position then be honest enough to say so. Intellectual integrity demands
no less.
