Quid pro quo is a term commonly used in contract law where an exchange between two parties is required in order for the contract to be legal. In other words, all parties to a contract have to get something out of it or it’s not legal. Additionally, the term is used in cases of sexual harassment where career benefits might be promised for sexual favors or disadvantages threatened for the denial of sexual favors. In everyday vernacular, quid quo pro is expressed as “You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours.”

In government, quid pro quo is better known as “play-along-to-get along” and is arguably attributable for the slow decline of our Republic. Those who practice this compromising strategy may tell themselves that they are doing it for the benefit of their constituents, when in reality it just may be to secure votes. The pork barrel legislation that has increased our national budget exponentially along with a debilitating administration is directly attributable to this well-veiled strategy of compromise.

Quid pro quo begins…

To the best of my recollection, the first negotiation of this nature was made by the Continental Congress when they settled that slaves would be counted as 3/5 of a human being. The purpose then was to ensure that the southern states joined the Union. At that time, these states wanted the slaves to be counted as 100% human so that their representative count in Congress would be increased, assuring them of the continuance of slavery. Thus, the southern states were ironically allowed to continue their practice of slavery through their increased numbers in Congress by counting on the humanity of their slaves to continue their anti-human practice.

Mrs. Quid pro quo

While it can be argued that the Obama administration has been plagued with faulty progressive Muslim/sensitive ideology, Hillary Clinton is motivated by insatiable greed and the desire for power. Thus, there is no boundary she is not willing to cross or any deal she is not willing to make if it benefits her in some way – regardless of its consequences for the nation. Her exploitation of Black Lives Matter and of members of her own gender, bear witness to this claim. Thus, Quid Pro Quo should become the nickname of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the operations of the Clinton Foundation are being investigated, or should be investigated, Mrs. Quid Pro Quo has used this philosophy to her advantage allegedly in numerous ways, including suspicions that she has sold national favors in exchange for personal gain while Secretary of State. And who can forget when the Clinton’s sold nights in the Lincoln bedroom, or the $1,000,000 salary awarded to their daughter right out of college?

A new kind of quid pro quo

As a nation we have become immune to the “If you elect me, I’ll do this” quid pro quo promises of candidates. Unfortunately, election speeches are not held to the same standards as contract law, and so the benefit the candidate realizes in being elected is not matched by the realization of the promises made to their constituents. But not only are their constituents shortchanged, so is the entire United States.

While I understand the sympathy New Yorkers had for the betrayed First Lady when they elected her as their Senator, her national disgrace was a factor in helping her get elected and served to her advantage. Additionally, it is possible that another quid quo pro was working in the Clinton marriage in the form of “You help me get elected now, and I’ll help you get elected later.”

Of course a personal quid pro quo among spouses can never be proven. However, forgiving national humiliation resulting from chronic womanizing may not be the fruit of a forgiving spouse. It may be evidence of a quid pro quo deal struck decades ago. If her Senate election was more influenced by sympathy for the betrayed First Lady than for her political acumen, the benefit she has received from Bill Clinton’s adoring rhetoric may be nothing more than payback, since it certainly is not evidence of a faithful relationship.

In a world where one’s record of achievements should count more than well-crafted propaganda and empty campaign rhetoric, the Clinton’s possible quid quo pro may not bear the fruit years of cultivation should have provided. In this case, I can only hope that Mrs. Quid Pro Quo and all her devious self-serving deals will finally get “Trumped.”

Reprint from The Daily Rant, copyright 2016 Mychal Massie, by permission