Cronyism, like many political practices, excels simply due to politicians' ability to mask its practice behind falsified promises to the general public concerning their increased welfare in exchange for new regulations. As explained in the lecture, cronyism is government intervention that benefits special interests at the expense of the public, essentially meaning that often the needs of large corporations will be met far before the needs of the public. Although this week's lecture may have discussed cronyism from a historical standpoint calling it “the nation's first big business,” this is not to suggest that cronyism only excelled in the 19th century. Recognizing “cronie” practices within more modern or even current administration is greatly important as its recognition can contribute to its limitation as citizens become more aware of the need to critically think and analyze proposed policy and what it will truly mean for them. Through recognizing the signs of cronyism in current politicians citizens could greatly alter the results of future election cycles as they take a more analytical approach to the candidate of their choosing. It is my opinion that one of the easiest ways for one to analyze cronyism in potential political leaders is to research what companies the majority of congressmen and congresswomen are major stockholders in order to gauge future government intervention that will support that company.
Recently, controversy has risen over The U.S. State Department's proposed plan to purchase $400 million worth of armored electric vehicles in which to transport notable officials and diplomats in the United States. The controversy stems from the fact that this proposed contract specifically cited Tesla as the provider of the $400 million worth of electric vehicles suggesting possible cronyism. Elon Musk has been an instrumental part of advising this current administration's economic reform and is a close ally with President Trump suggesting that this lucrative deal for Elon Musk's company, Tesla, was only gifted due to his close alliance with the President. However, when asked about potential cronyism the White House denied it, stating that the talks of entering into a contract with Tesla began in the Biden administration therefore it had nothing to do with political alliance. Although this may be true I would argue that regardless of political alliance this still suggests cronyism as the U.S. government is entering into a contract with a singular large corporation. This allows Tesla to decide how many cars they wish to produce with $400 million, the speed at which they produce them, and the quality of their product output as they understand there is no competition as they have secured the contract. If the U.S. government wishes to finance this in the most intelligent way I would suggest splitting the contract among 2 or 3 different electric car manufacturers. Not only would this ensure the increased quality and speed of the deliverables as there is now competition but it would also allow for a safety net for the government should one of the companies vehicles need to be recalled or be stuck in an update for too long as electric cars update like modern Iphones. Furthermore, one might assume that this does not fit the definition of cronyism as although it benefits the special interests of Tesla it's not so much at the expense of the public, however I would argue otherwise. As the U.S. potentially moves towards standardizing electrical vehicles and limiting motor companies' creations of petroleum run vehicles this ensures the market of U.S. consumers will be forced to purchase electric or hybrid cars if they choose to own a vehicle of their own. As Tesla is the current market leader, if they gain this government contract this could allow them to significantly increase the prices of their vehicles due to their high profile audience, making car ownership out of reach for a large portion of the U.S. population.
Another pertinent example of accused cronyism exists within the Supreme Court as Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have both faced scrutiny over undisclosed gifts given to them by members of the community who have pending interests before the court. For the past two decades Justice Thomas has been accepting luxury gifts such as privately chartered jets or yacht trips from the Dallas-based Real Estate tycoon, Harlan Crow, even going as far as to join Crow on his family vacations. Similarly Justice Alito was invited by and attended several luxury vacations with the full bill footed by hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer mere months before he appeared before the courts pleading to rule favorably in his manor for high stakes business disputes. This raises the ultimate concern as the Supreme Court is supposed to uphold and represent the highest forms of justice in the nation and even our most highly regarded justices are not immune from the claws of cronyism. The proliferation of overlooked undisclosed gifts made to Supreme Court Justices only allows the power gap to grow between social classes as justice should not apply only to those who can afford it. Through large donations and expensive gifts billionaires ensure the government provides exactly what they need in order to continue turning a profit, allowing large corporations to only grow in power. This is at the great detriment of our economy as if the justice system continues to aid large corporations in eliminating competition our economy will cease to evolve as innovation will no longer thrive without competition.
