I'm a pretty big un-fan of not-baa, but there doesn't seem to me to be anything remarkable or implausible (well, except for not buying influence) about the post.

What about the cynicism of not giving a shit about who actually runs the country, as long as I can kiss the ass of someone more important than myself?

Eh, I don't think I've read bandarlog for a long time, and now I remember why.

I have no idea what any of it has to do with not-baa.

2: The linked post doesn't say that. (Actually, I'm not sure you're claiming that it does. I'm not sure what you're saying.)

It doesn't? Okay, if you say so.

Word, bitchphd. Isn't that what it's all about?

This is just like the Baudelaire story Derrida uses in Given Time.

I have no idea what any of it has to do with not-baa.

Baa's posts are the leftmost on bandarlog, hence come in for the most approbation 'round these parts.

5. I don't believe -- at the margin! -- that a little money makes any difference to electoral outcomes.

I don't think I've read bandarlog for a long time

This means at one time you read the bandarlog? That's amazing! I thought our non-family readership was like four people. Remind me to forward you a commerative keychain.

Oh, and in defense of Ben H, his desire to suck up is basically zero. He is, however, a highly rational favor buyer. But what do you expect -- he trades emerging markets...

If I give $5K when asked

Call me selfish, but favors or no, I can think of many superior ways to maximize my gratification with any extra $5K I might find lying around, whomever the candidate. But then, what they say about the rich is true, I suppose.

highly rational

s/b "cynical libertarian-type," i.e., "not really rational but dressed up in the costume of false reason."

But what do you expect -- he trades emerging markets...

I take it he doesn't personally, uh, exploit certain inefficiencies, but rather this is done for him by another department?

"not really rational but dressed up in the costume of false reason."

B, are you a covert foundationalist? If so, I must say I am delighted. I was speaking in the looser sense of means-ends reasoning. That is, if one has an end, pursuing the appropriate means to that end makes one rational (of course, one must pursue them because they are the means to the end, etc).

Are pushing the line that some ends are irrational in themselves, and accordingly anyone who pursues them in an effective way is nonetheless irrational? Word!

is done for him by another department

Perish the thought

I know this must be betraying my station in life, but I can't help but wonder what kind of favors are considered cheap at $5k. I'm assuming we're talking legal favors. Is it as simple as Ben H. expect a reward of goods worth well over his initial investment? Maybe you can't say precisely, but perhaps someone has general information on how the world of money-raising works? (If Ben H. is right and favors are involved, then he's probably not the only one playing this game.)

favors

Think "good will," Michael. Being able to ask someone to set up a meeting, maybe, or not feeling bashful about calling someone to ask what they know about something or someone.... It establishes a relationship.

Bingo. It's not quid pro quo. It's "hey, I should really take a meeting with this guy, his boss helped me out on that Obama thing."

It's mutual blowjobs. Just admit it, baa. We're sophisticated people.

It is remarkable how much a politician will kiss your ass for small sums of money. It is really embarrassing.

I donated $1,500.00 to a pro-choice state-level politician. The way she fawned over me was rather off-putting for such a small donation. (big for me, small in the grand scheme of things)

It is telling of what people expect when they donate money.

(big for me, small in the grand scheme of things)

Shall I grab at the low hanging fruit?...

Keep your hands off my low hanging fruit, delicate and small though it may be! No ripping and swallowing for you!

Who is this guy and why should we care about his amorality?

As a demonstration of the fact that elections are financed by groups of rich people doing each other favors rather than acting in what they see as the best interests of the country? I mean, it's not surprising, but it's the sort of thing worth reminding ourselves of occasionally.

Oh, and in defense of Ben H, his desire to suck up is basically zero. He is, however, a highly rational favor buyer.

A distinction, as far as I can tell, without a difference.

A distinction, as far as I can tell, without a difference.

Sure there's a difference. Sucking up is, first of all, an attitude, and second, something that indicates lower status on the part of the sucker up. Neither is in evidence here. I can't believe you're making me defend baa's genocidal co-blogger, LB.

Who is this guy

A friend of baa's.

Agree with ogged. Sucking up sucks, comparatively.

Sucking up or swaggering around, it's distasteful either way.

second, something that indicates lower status on the part of the sucker up.

Oh, sure that's in evidence. If having a greater shot at access to someone in the future is worth thousands of dollars to you, you're of lower status than they are. (You could have a situation where people of equal status were forming networking bonds by exchanging donations to favored causes, but that's not what Ben H. is describing.)

Now, he may have a vibrantly independent sense of personal integrity as he pays rich people for the privilege of having them remember his name when they have valuable favors to pass out, but I don't think that changes what you call the behavior.

(You could have a situation where people of equal status were forming networking bonds

I don't know the details, obviously, but this sounds closer to what's going on than Ben H. buying "access." It could also be that, given who asked, he sees his 5k now as an investment likely to make him much more in the future. Hard to say, but "sucking up" is so unsavor--a lot worse than "genocidal," for sure--that I don't want to accuse anyone of it without a little more evidence.

You think? He's describing the people he's happy to have the chance to do favors for in the hope that they'll think well of him in the future as 'wealthy and powerful people', not 'my wealthy and powerful peers in the upper echelons of [whatever my industry is]".

If you don't like 'sucking up', is 'toad-eating' more palatable? I'm not saying he should be ashamed of himself: putting yourself in position to get favors from rich powerful people is probably a very efficient way to advance your professional/economic prospects. But there's no reason to be euphemistic about it.

28: Look, the status thing is immaterial. What matters is the relative cost (for him)--small. The relative benefit--not huge, but less small. It's not a big deal, it's not a small deal. It's just an opportunity. The difference as regards sucking up is that (a) it's usually constant, and worse (b) you're much less sure how or even that it pays off.

What precisely "integrity" is supposed to have to do with anything is extremely unclear to me. He sees a deal that, by his lights, looks good, and he intends to take it. That's what he's supposed to do. No one would wonder about his integrity if he saved $200 on a lawnmower.

Ignore ogged's concerns about "sucking up." You can take the boy out of Iran and all that.

Well, there have been other times and cultures in which befriending rich and powerful people in the hopes of benefiting from the crumbs they let fall from their tables was ill-thought of, as betokening a lack of pride or integrity; such cultures are where words like 'toad-eater' were coined.

In America, today, it's not so much disfavored. So he's got nothing to be ashamed of.

You think? He's describing the people he's happy to have the chance to do favors for in the hope that they'll think well of him in the future as 'wealthy and powerful people', not 'my wealthy and powerful peers in the upper echelons of [whatever my industry is]".

This is where I feel like I don't have enough info to know whether he's being modest or reporting the real state of affairs.

Modest sounds unlikely. He's reporting it as if he were being clever in organizing his donations this way. Doing reciprocal favors for equals isn't clever, it's just ordinary sensible behavior that I wouldn't expect anyone to preen themselves about; deliberately putting yourself in the position of doing a favor for your superiors is clever.

(And of course I'm being unpleasant in my choice of words; I find it irritating that we live in a society where this sort of sucking up is rewarding, but that doesn't mean that someone doing it is doing anything particularly wrong.)

there have been other times and cultures in which befriending rich and powerful people in the hopes of benefiting from the crumbs they let fall from their tables was ill-thought of, as betokening a lack of pride or integrity

I tend to suspect that there were people in those cultures that said, rather than cultural unanimity on that point. I'm not actually aware of kings without courts, but maybe I'm wrong.

such cultures are where words like 'toad-eater' were coined.

I'm guessing it pops up mostly in cultures that were British suzerainities for gawd knows how many years.

Modest sounds unlikely.

Meh, even the amoral rich have their mores. I think the self-satisfaction comes from giving money to Obama, when he, personally, has no interest in seeing Obama elected--that was the point of my link: cynical unto disturbing hilarity.

I find it irritating that we live in a society where this sort of sucking up is rewarding, but that doesn't mean that someone doing it is doing anything particularly wrong.

Really? You don't think so? I'd be inclined towards viewing it as wrong.

Understandable, yes. Something we all probably do at some time or another, yes. But still, there's something not quite right about it.

That's just the Iranian in you talking, ttaM.

Eh, depressing? Pathetic? Unsightly? But it's not any wronger than any other way of participating in an unpleasant system.

I think you'll find it's the big chip on my shoulder talking.

However, more seriously, I've watched people around me who assiduously curry favour with those in a position to advance them in their career and, while it makes rational sense for me to do the same, I can't help feeling that actively sucking up* to people in that way reflects badly on them and would reflect badly on me if I were to do the same.

* beyond just being decently helpful, friendly, polite, etc.

Is this really that much different from a junior professor hosting the faculty party?

Yeah, the question is whether not participating changes anything. If it doesn't, then you're only hurting yourself by not sucking up. I do share your chip, though, or at least sympathize strongly with it.

I can't help feeling that actively sucking up* to people in that way reflects badly on them and would reflect badly on me if I were to do the same

Sure, no one likes a suck-up, but sucking-up at a level somewhere below "annoyingly sycophantic" does pay off, so lots of people do it. This is one of those things I wouldn't have guessed. Even people in positions of power who realize that someone is sucking up and don't particularly like it will often reward it nonetheless.

So Iran, Scotland, and--if I recall my LB family history correctly--Ireland have rung in. Which means we're still waiting for Ile and leblanc, at a minimum.

Note that I haven't conceded that Ben H. is sucking up.

Right. You've left open the possibility that the facts are not as he describes, which would be sucking up, but instead he's just being modest.

re: 43

I seriously feel that doing the sucking up would lessen me. Non-participation does nothing to change the system, but it does prevent changes in me. So, it's rational for me, in the sense that I care more about retaining a certain level of self-respect than I do about advancing at the cost of that self-respect, not to.

That's not to say that I'm some super-principled person. I'm sure I'm sometimes more helpful to people in positions of power and influence over me than I might otherwise be. And I probably unconsciously suck up a bit. But the more blatant, or demeaning type of thing that I see, I couldn't do.

Perhaps this is all somewhat 'chippy' and irrational of me.

I don't understand the distinction LB is making, resisting the word "wrong." What's wrong with wrong?

49: Well, say I'm a wildly competent individual, absolutely deserving of professional advancement on the merits. And say I'm in an environment where sucking up makes a great deal of difference to who gets advancement. It's not 'wrong' of me to suck up -- I'm not getting something that should go to someone more deserving in the absence of my sucking up. Instead, if I don't participate, some less deserving suckup will get the rewards I would otherwise have gotten.

Ttam's point about degrading yourself is a real one, but if you're in a culture that operates on this sort of patronage, not participating doesn't increase the justice of the outcomes, which to me says that it's not actually wrong to participate.

If you drop the "suck up" language, I think we're more likely to have comity. Sucking up seems to me distinct from participating in the patronage system.

I have a friend who, years ago, was applying to law schools, and the father of a friend of his was on the board or admissions committee or something of a very good law school, and my friend was invited to a party to shmooze with this guy. It would have been perfectly acceptable and not sucking up (of course, he could have sucked up, rather that merely shmoozed, when he got there) for him to go. In the event, my friend didn't go, because he wanted to get in somewhere purely on the merits.

Ttam's point about degrading yourself is a real one, but if you're in a culture that operates on this sort of patronage,

If you're in a culture that operates on this sort of patronage--that is, all of them; see ogged's #44--do you need to assume some sort of naturally constituted "human dignity" before you can determine whether you're degrading yourself by doing, apparently, what everyone else does? (Snark that turned into a serious question.)

Ah, exonerated by the corruption of the system. I think not participating, and making it plain you aren't does in the long run increase the justice of the outcomes, by de-legitimating the system.

Pie-in-the-sky, I know.

do you need to assume some sort of naturally constituted "human dignity" before you can determine whether you're degrading yourself by doing, apparently, what everyone else does?

We humans have endless ingenuity for making distinctions that let us have good people and bad people. Shmoozing ok, sucking up bad. Networking good, social climbing bad. Etc. There's no timeless truth about these things, but there are real societal distinctions that can make people feel good or bad about themselves.

all of them

This is overstated, don't you think? Cultures can be more or less reliant on patronage and 'who you know' -- I think in my lifespan the US has been swinging to the more rather than less side of the spectrum, which is not the way I'd prefer it. I'm a rotten, terrible, lousy suckup.

re: 52

It's not as unambiguous as that though. Every society is also one in which people lie, steal and deceive. The fact that these are universal facets of a particular society, and even that in certain environments may be near-universal, says nothing about their wrongness.

There's nothing metaphysically 'queer' about the notion of dignity and self-respect and it doesn't go away because lots of people don't value it.

Also, 52 seems to imply that conforming to the norm of behaviour is a morally neutral thing to do. Which seems clearly false.

conforming to the norm of behaviour

Of course a robot would be programmed to do this; I don't call him Timbot just because I hope it annoys him, you know.

55: I started noticing the rise of "who do you know" in the US in about 1983, when I met Ivy types who slacked their actual education but worked the "contacts" and "networks" diligently. They were also big into "dress for success" -- one guy thought long and hard about whether my mustache was more impressive than his (this was the pre-Grizzly-Adams me.)

This may just have been my late awakening to the way the world has always worked, though, at age 37.

Doesn't context matter? If the resource-dispensing target of flattery/false bonhomie/political contribution prizes loyalty above competence, one compromises oneself by laughing at the joke that isn't funny. If on the other hand, tiny advantages of familiarity affect which of several basically deserving people get the office or the contract, buy the fat guy a drink and listen sympathetically. All men are brothers, right?

Cultures can be more or less reliant on patronage and 'who you know' -- I think in my lifespan the US has been swinging to the more rather than less side of the spectrum, which is not the way I'd prefer it.

From the early Seventies to now? You need to meet more women. Or black people. Or gay people.

Different issues. Just because there are entire categories of people who are allowed to play now who were excluded before, doesn't mean that the force of patronage isn't stronger within the group of 'those allowed to play' than it used to be.

I tend to agree using the phrase "sucking up" isn't helpful here. Or rather, it's only helpful if you are a priori committed to casting what's going on negatively.

Let's say some peer at firm X has a kid selling girl scout cookies. You buy them because, hey, that will mean that when you call firm X on some informal favor they are likely to do it more quickly. That's all that's happening here, except it's like 800 boxes of thin mints.

Same or related issue. When you hear a woman or minority (or an out gay person, I guess) complain about restricted golf clubs or other social clubs, the underlying complaint is this: "He's able to stick his tongue up my boss's ass on the weekends, and I'm not."

Like Timbot 5000, I don't think it's obvious that we are moving towards a more patronage-based, who-you-know economy, and would be interested in what evidence supports that conclusion. My sense is that we are headed in the other direction, but I couldn't marshal evidence to support that feeling.

Of course (libertarian teachable moment!) worries about patronage and access capitalism are yet another reason to seek distributed free markets with many decision makers, rather than unified regulatory control. It's very hard to lobby your way to success in the semiconductor business. Phone service, less so.

Of course a robot would be programmed to do this; I don't call him Timbot just because I hope it annoys him, you know.

I think it's fair to say that I'm much less clear about "wrong" than "wrong for me," and much more clear about the distinction between the two than I was even a few years ago. I certainly still slip a fair bit--I'd be astonished if I haven't constantly done so in comments here--because I have strong moralist prig instincts, but I do make an effort not to, esp. IRL.

That's all that's happening here, except it's like 800 boxes of thin mints.

I guess I'm prissy about the political system. It's not just Thin Mints! It's a political candidate that you don't, yourself, actually especially want to do well.

And even in a professional rather than political context, if the Thin Mints are making a real difference, that's pretty repulsive.

have strong moralist prig instincts

Me too, but I'm quite happy with 'em.

On the one hand, I have fairly harsh standards about what counts as 'decent' behaviour and I'm not afraid of using condemnatory language but on the other hand, I have very lax/liberal views about what we ought to do about most of those failings.

68: I can't even imagine. You must be a bear for the neighborhood kids' to sell raffle tickets to.

My daughter has a very nice T-shirt she won at a raffle at the school play, because I bought probably half of all the tickets sold: the PTA needs the money and I was in an impulsive mood. I'm not expecting to get anything more out of it though.

And we buy a whole lot of Girl Scout cookies, because we like eating them. Buying cookies you didn't want because you expect the person you bought them from to owe you? Icky.

Buying cookies you didn't want because you expect the person you bought them from to owe you? Icky.

See, see!

that's pretty repulsive.

This reasoning is why Spock is never going to get his own command.

Buying cookies you didn't want because you expect the person you bought them from to owe you? Icky.

Being able to enforce the "owe" is icky. The description that is probably more often used is "being a good neighbor," with the expectation that in a neighborhood, parents (if they have the wherewithal) buy the crap that other people's kids sell with the expectation that their own kids will be able to offload some similar crap down the road. And if the other parents don't pay off? Not much you can do, and probably not a very big deal to you. All perfectly normal.

This reasoning is why Spock is never going to get his own command.

So great, so right. Look, sucking up bad, agreed. But our society has gone to a lot of trouble to make the thought "that's a good person to do a good turn for" acceptable, so you might as well take advantage.

This reasoning is why Spock is never going to get his own command.

And this comment is also the sort of thing I think of as a libertarian teachable moment. You think this way, I want a regulator watching you.

Fun fact: "The word baksheesh has its origins in the Persian bakhshish (بخشش) which means "gift." Bakhsheesh is one of the many Persian words which moved eastward through trade and the Mogul Empire."

76, Amen.

Fun fact

Yeah, though I'd be curious to hear more about the etymology, because "bakhsh" is also the word for "forgiveness."

more about the etymology

YourDictionary.com says, "[Persian bakhshish, present, from Middle Persian bakhshishn, from bakhshimacr.gifdan, bakhsh-, to give presents, from Avestan bakhsh-; see bhag- in Indo-European roots.]"

The OED says:

Pers. bakhsh{imac}sh present, f. bakhsh{imac}-dan to give; now used in Arabic, Turkish, and Urdu.

Advantage, YourDictionary.com.

Huh, kinda odd. I've never heard "bakhshidan" as "to give' in Farsi; always as "to forgive."

That's because you people don't distinguish between getting shit and forgiving some offense.

Blood money, baby.

re: 83

Who are you going to believe? Your family and everyone you know? Or some beardy white guy writing in an attic (probably in the building in which I am currently sitting) 100 years ago?

84: Gawd that sucked. Come up with something snarky, over-rude, and possibly racist and pretend I said it.

If I say the beardy white guy, can I count on you for a favor someday?

Gawd that sucked.

Don't go soft, Timothy.

"Buying cookies you didn't want because you expect the person you bought them from to owe you?"

Ok, Lizardbreath, I call foul:

You do not buy cookies from someone because you know that your children will be selling wrapping paper in a couple of months?

darn, beat to it by tim.

That wouldn't creep me out so long as the favors being exchanged are parallel: fundraising for fundraising. But I don't let the kids participate in the wrapping paper sales because I don't want to sell wrapping paper to my coworkers. We give money instead.

re: 88

When we rule with an iron hand over our feeble and hairless vassals, I'll look out for you.

Late to party, but: Because I'm familiar with the degree of cynicism whereby influence buyers spread their love around so as to never be on the losing side, this isn't creepy to me. What's great about it is that it's both cynical and removed: the person is buying influence from the influence buyer, with no regard whatsoever for the outcome of the election, or even in relation to the outcome of the election.

Since I am neither prissy about democracy nor libertarian but rather an easily amused social democrat, I think this is funny and the person writing it should be taxed too much to have $5k lying around for this sort of nonsense.