hower receiving $2 million from Fujisankei Communicationsrnfor two 20-minute speeches in Tokvo—as former PresidentrnRonald Reagan did?rnAmericans today are victimized by a unique Washingtonrnpolitical culture in which former high-level officials and presidentialrncampaign advisors routinely manipulate and distortrnnational decision-making to their own ends. There is a cushyrnlife outside government the moment they leave. So manyrnpeople in Washington these days have dollar signs in theirrneyes, the public is no longer certain that policies are basedrnon the substance and the merit of what is truly in the broadrnpublic interest. And there is a legitimate concern that governmentrnexecutives are contemplating their “post-emplovmentrnopportunities” as thev decide and implement federal policiesrnthat bear directly on private interests.rnWhat is most tiresome about the lobbyingrnculture of Washington are the self-servingrncontortions its practitioners go throughrnin describing their daily activities.rnMost lobbyists, of course, maintain thatrnthey do not really lobby—saying the “1”rnword publicly is a subtle indiscretion.rnEuphemisms such as “advise” or “consult”rnor “suggest,” etc., are uttered instead.rnWith extensive cross-pollination between public and privaternsectors, a kind of group-thiiik dynamic begins to evolve as anrnintegral part of the political culture. Corporate governmentrnaffairs “specialists” and company-retained attorneys or inhouserncounsels tell federal officials—on Capitol Hill andrndowntown in the various federal departments and agencies —rnwhat is in the public interest and how the “public” can bernserved, and somehow it usually sounds reasonable, because itrnis stated within the general framework and formula of what isrnacceptable. The language used is the same as the government’s,rnthe same syntax, the same endless acronyms, thernsame bureaucratic inanities. Most public officials by naturerntake the path of least resistance, and most are laboring underrna formidable work load. In this context, then, the lobbyist isrnseen as a kind of masterful Mr. Goodwrench, who helps thernwheels of Washington roll smoothly, easily.rnMost of these private sector-public sector interactions arernover the most arcane, esoteric clauses and regulations imaginablern—the general public and the press are ignorant of andrndisinterested in such things. Indeed, reading the pages of arnphone book would be easier and more interesting to them.rnUnfortunately, these obtuse matters often involve billions ofrndollars in tax breaks, subsidies, or contracts.rnIn the instances in which there is an actual heated controversy,rnoften over a broad issue of public interest and hugernstakes, the hired guns line up on both or on many sides ofrnthe issue. The result is either a “consensvis” in which everv interestrnhas been mollified, or intractable gridlock, in whichrngovernment seems to be at a standstill, rendered impotentrnand ineffectual.rnAnd the game thus becomes, not the broad public interest,rnnot what would be best for America—such notions are consideredrnnot only hopelessly trite but, worse, naive—but thernprocess of government and of how to master and manipulaternit, often via the news media. It is the “expert” who understandsrnthe issues and the process, who has institutional memoryrnand a bulging Rolodex, who is most respected in Washingtonrntoday and is quietly acknowledged bv the playersrninvolved as responsible for “making things happen.” lie isrnnot a public ofhcial, he has no political mandate, and, in fact,rnhe is accountable to no one except his client.rnWashington lobbyists are today what New York investmentrnbankers were in the 1980’s. With the biggest salaries going tornagents working for overseas interests, foreign lobbying has becomerna profession young people now aspire to—a notion unheardrnof a few decades ago. Take the case of Steven Saunders,rnwho quit government as an Assistant U.S. Trade Representativernafter a stint of only 18 months to begin his own “consulting”rnfirm. Within nine months, Saunders and his firmrnwere on retainer to the Japanese Embassy and four other foreignrnclients, receiving $240,000 in fees and expenses. Collegerninterns and law school students today come to Washington notrnto change the world, but to learn more about the exciting,rnextremely lucrative world of big-time schmoozing and dealmaking.rnMeanwhile, as the National Commission on PublicrnService concluded, “Too many of our most talented publicrnservants—those with the skills and dedication that are thernhallmarks of an effective career service—are ready to leave.rnToo few of our brightest voung people—those with the imaginationrnand energy that are essential for the future—are willingrnto join.” As management genius Peter Drucker observedrnin The New Realities (1989), “the locus of decision making inrnthe political process is rapidly shifting from politicians andrncivil servants to lobbyists.”rnWhat is most tiresome about the lobbying culture of Washingtonrnare the self-serving contortions its practitioners gornthrough in describing their daily activities. Most lobbyists, ofrncourse, maintain that they do not really lobby—saying thern”1″ word publicly is a subtle indiscretion. Euphemisms such asrn”advise” or “consult” or “suggest,” etc., are uttered instead.rnWhen making boastful proposals to prospective clients, lobbyistsrnpromise everything but the keys to the Oval Office.rnWhen criticism (an occupational hazard but a relatively infrequentrninconvenience) occasionally arises in the press overrnthe heavy-handed, strong-arm tactics used bv lobbyists, thern”Who, me?” modesty act is strutted out—”All we do is providerninformation.” Most facilitators seem by nature to bernperpetually auditioning to star in The Invisible Man and tornprefer that their handiwork go unnoticed and undetected.rnA few years ago, a reporter wrote a story that included arnsentence about former Carter White House advisor SturnEizenstadt and the $200,000 fee he and his firm had receivedrnfrom Hitachi. After the piece came out, Eizenstadt was furious,rnand he called the reporter and complained. Are you saying,rnasked the reporter, that the information reported was incorrectrnor inaccurate? No, replied the agitated Eizenstadt.rnWhy did the information have to be mentioned at all? Yournsee, said Eizenstadt, “my mother saw it and she was upset.”rn16/CHRONICLESrnrnrn