Quid pro quo and politics

William T. Robinson, Jr.

In trying to defend his actions, which have lead to an impeachment investigation, the POTUS has argued there was no ‘quid pro quo’ in his conversation with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky. The term, no ‘quid pro quo,’ seems to have become the single rehearsed rallying mantra among the Senate Republicans, adamantly loyal to the POTUS.

During his conversation with the Ukrainian president, the POTUS undeniably used his influence as president for personal gain. He asked Zelensky to do us a favor that is very important. This is evident when he asked the Ukrainian president to investigate his political rival, former Vice President Joe Bidden. Trump further alludes to the United States supplying financial aid to Ukraine. Many see this comment as threatening leverage and pressure on the Ukrainian president to adhere to what is clearly a bribe.

Make no mistake, quid pro quo plays as big a part in American politics as apple. It is even described as the fundamental element involved in effectuating deals by many politicians. Basically put, quid pro quo means: I do something for you and in return you do something for me. Many would liken it to a compromise in which both parties win or get something they want. It is often a basic tool used that could explain politics as a whole.

Actually, quid pro quo is used in reaching bipartisan support on many major deals among politicians involving public issues. The use of quid pro quo can be seen as beneficial and productive or detrimental and self-serving according to the end results. But make no mistake, it would be self serving and an abuse of his powers as president to personally threaten or bribe another country to do his personal bidding to try to get defamatory information on a politician rival.

While the president is adamant that there was no quid pro quo, actions thereafter indicate otherwise. Money presently allocated to Ukraine was put on hold. Many people associated with the phone call are on the defense and are being subpoenaed. The president is disassociating himself from many of those under national investigation. He knows they are connected with the allegations of wrongdoing against him.

Isn’t it ironic, how all the loyal supporters of the POTUS in the Senate are unified in expressing that no quid pro quo took place in his conversation with the Ukrainian president? Could it be surmised that they all were prepped on the same argument to use in defending the president? This continuing practice to undermine the intelligence of the American public who seek justice and truth never seems to end with this POTUS.

Respectfully, quid pro quo has been used to bring about much needed and productive changes among conflicting parties. But by the same token, many unsavory, self-serving and illicit deals have been made under quid pro quo—even criminal in content. Its usage can be compared to a double edge sword that could be used for good or bad. That is why the public should be cognizant and given complete transparency on issues that may be enacted into law—especially issues or decisions involving their communities.

But on a positive note, the American public that may not have known much about effective politics before, have been given a thorough exposure to the term ‘quid pro quo,’ which some would eagerly argue is the essence of politics.