Biden, Borgia, and Buying Influence

Power is a privilege, one that we bestow on our leaders every few years in the hopes they will wield it wisely and in our interests. It comes down to a matter of trust. Can we trust the person to whom we offer our vote and our personal power to put our desires at the forefront of all they do?

Sadly, it seems that we cannot.

Donald Trump dubbed Washington, D.C. the Swamp, and it has become more apparent than ever that this term could apply to just about every major politician in terms of influence-peddling, shady deals, and quid pro quos now so commonplace.

But this is not a recent phenomenon. It’s as old as the hills and, as we discuss in today’s edition of the Rabbit Hole, it’s been an open secret for centuries.

To kick us off, let’s talk about nepotism.

There are examples of this in today’s political realm. We have Hunter Biden, apparently unqualified in the energy sector, receiving a staggeringly well-paid position with a Ukrainian energy firm just after his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, made an official visit to the nation.

The facts of this arrangement may never fully emerge, and, although Hunter has issued a strange half-apology for getting involved, the media are presently closing ranks to dismiss the idea that he got his position because of his father’s power as a “debunked conspiracy theory.” Really? THAT’S the conspiracy?

It is no surprise that relatives of the rich and powerful get benefits. The term nepotism dates back to before the Renaissance, used in French and Italian and rooted in the Latin word “nepos,” which means nephew.

In the 17^th century and later, it was common for popes and other high-ranking clergy to identify their illegitimate sons as nephews. As a valued nepos, each was granted rank, position, and status. This social elevation of illegitimate children was no secret, and peasants of the day sang comic songs about how many “nephews” this pope or that cardinal had.

The Tamil poet-philosopher Valluvar, who lived around the 6^th century B.C., said of familial  favoritism: "If you choose an unfit person for your job just because you love and like him, he will lead you to endless follies." Has Hunter led Joe to the same place?

Some of the most notorious acts of nepotism occurred during the papal period of Rodrigo Borgia, otherwise known as Alexander VI. Now Borgia, as a man of the cloth, couldn’t marry or sire legitimate children, but, perhaps unsurprisingly for the time, he was considered a good family man. He fathered as many as 12 children in all, but it his last four about which we know the most.

Cesare, Giofre, Giovanni, and Lucrezia were in many ways tools in constructing Borgia’s power. There is no doubt he loved them, even going so far as to legitimize them. But they were, at the end of the day, merely pawns to be used in his larger game.

This family was the inspiration for Mario Puzo’s Godfather novel, its main character Don Vito Corleone, and his four children. Their personalities align with that of the Borgias: Cesare as Michael, Giovanni as hot-headed Sonny, Gioffre as tragic Fredo, and Lucrezia as Connie.

Although pawns, the children did benefit from their father’s lofty position. Cesare was elevated to cardinal and, when he tired of the red, became the leader of the papal armies. His brothers enjoyed similar gifts of position, power, and property. Perhaps the one to feel sorry for was Lucrezia, who was married off to other families that could benefit the pope. Ending those marriages when it politically suited Borgia’s struggle for power left Lucrezia torn from the arms of a man she had grown to love, leaving her the archetypal widow in black. The Godfather’s Connie experiences a similar loss when her cheating husband Carlo Rizzi is murdered by her own family.

The Borgia children were as much victims of their father as they were beneficiaries.

But one particular instance of corruption I want to talk about today relates to how Borgia became pope.

In July 1492, Pope Innocent VIII died, and a papal enclave was called to determine the next pontiff. Of the 27 cardinals to cast votes, just four were career churchmen; the rest were “nephews” and “special appointments.”

Despite being well thought of as a cardinal, Borgia was a Spaniard and not likely to ascend to Peter’s throne. Ascanio Sforza and Giuliano della Rovere were the top candidates. But despite being as willing to buy the papacy through the granting of offices, estates, and cold hard cash, the pair lacked the ferocious fervor with which Borgia managed to purchase each cardinal. Even Sforza received in recompense for his vote titles, swathes of land, and four mule-loads of silver.

At the time, a young Giovanni di Lorenzo de' Medici (who later became Pope Leo X) is rumored to have said, "Now we are in the power of a wolf, the most rapacious perhaps that this world has ever seen. And if we do not flee, he will inevitably devour us all."

You see, to win this election was an affair of favors and fortune. The man who could promise the most  would win. We might wonder what favors would have been paid out had Hillary Clinton won in 2016. Look to Haiti, where the Clinton Foundation was very much involved in rebuilding after the 2010 earthquake, and Anthony Rodham, Hillary’s brother, somehow managed to end up running a literal goldmine in the aftermath.

Rodham is a former repo man, prison guard, and private detective. Yet, he ended up on the board of a major goldmining operation in a country recently devastated. The CEO of the company, Angelo Viard, and Rodham deny that he was appointed because of his powerful sister and brother-in-law, yet both men refuse to say who first introduced them.

And in the United Kingdom, nepotism is more rife than you might imagine. The former Labour Party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, has three sons, two of whom work with the party in prominent positions. Members of Corbyn’s cabinet also have their children in key roles; sons and daughters of Labour Party-supporting unions are given access and opportunities. Is it any wonder that the Labour Party is considered the most useless in recent times? Striking examples of Vullavar’s “endless follies.”

Here’s the thing. In a private company, it is only right that -- assuming they are competent -- children go on to take over from parents. Why else would a family build a business if not to provide stability and income to future generations? But in politics, when petty frauds appoint half-wit children to positions of power, or grant high office to family friends or big-money donors, that directly impacts the conduct and well-being of a nation. What hubris. Either that, or it is complete disregard for the people who elected them.

It is dark, rank, and swampy, and it needs to be drained.

~

Read more from Mark Angelides.