So, this is my thing. Everything that comes next is the basis of my political ideology. Take it as you will.
To illustrate the general problems with our political system, I'll start with a case study. I'll discuss a single politician, a presidential candidate consistently supported by the DNC, who is politically brilliant and ultimately beholden to something other than the wishes of the American people:
Hillary Clinton
Hillary Clinton is frightening. Many make it out to seem like she's the model Democratic candidate, but it's probably more accurate to say that she's an archetypal representative of what Chomsky calls the American Business Party, whose two wings are the Republicans and the Democrats. When you look at her actions and words in the context of a broken Congress and a completely corrupt political system, Clinton is very obviously a representative of
the existing oligarchy. There are many details which corroborate this claim, such as character attributes, patterns of words and actions consistent with paradigms of corruption, and some hard facts about how Congress actually operates.
Look at her top donors: they're major corporate interests. She regularly accepts large donations from questionable foreign parties, and spends time with them as a result. A while back, I posted a short summary of these on my Facebook. It is not unreasonable to suspect that she's willingly, albeit cleverly, working as a proxy for dubious puppeteers.
She's the perfect example of somebody who wants power for its own sake. Siding with the democratic party is he best way to do that, because the Republican party right now is blatantly on the wrong side of history. In the history books, their current antagonism towards queer people, towards women, towards people of color, and so on, will clearly be seen as barbaric, representative of the darker depths of human instinct.
For an understanding of how she treats fellow human beings when she's not on camera, read into how she treated secret service agents when in the White House.
There's also her regular acceptance of patronage from wealthy persons like Donald Trump. A patronage which forged a strong enough relationship between them to merit her attending his wedding. Listen to her speech about it and tell me you're convinced.
As much as she tries to distance herself from bankers and high finance, her wedding with Wall Street and Big Business is pretty well documented.
Then there's the fact that she's the beneficiary of clearly corrupt mainstream media silencing tactics, like CNN ignoring the results of their online poll, which revealed that viewers of the debate overwhelmingly thought Bernie won, so that they could unflinchingly declare that Hillary won the debate.
It's even hard to defend the notion that she votes based on her own values—unless her views on civil rights have only existed since 2013, when she first declared her support for legalizing gay marriage. Otherwise, why would she have supported Don't Ask Don't Tell, then recanted her support later on? Her values changed? "Everybody changed since the 1990's?" Please. There were tons of people who legitimately advocated for gay rights before it was the cool thing to do. Such as Bernie.
Hillary vs. Bernie on gay rights
At this point, you might be suspecting that none of these arguments are really condemning. Surely, they can be explained somehow, and there must be a reason for all of this. Well, if you can explain away flat-out lying, then you probably have a problem and you should start working through the next four stages of grief.
In modern America's first-past-the-post, two-party voting system, which lends itself to severe instances of "strategic voting", there is one argument that trumps all the others in this presidential election cycle: don't vote Trump. The virtues of the candidates seem to be less important than their ability to defeat Trump on a presidential ballot. But if we take an honest look at the political climate, this line of reasoning falls apart as an unfounded fear tactic. A Democrat won the previous election, he won reelection, and he wasn't disgraced by any personal or national scandal. This automatically bodes well for whatever democratic candidate is elected. As the incumbent party, the Democrats have better access to powerful networks of data and organization than the Republicans, who are falling apart at the seams trying to deal with their circus of primary candidates. And with an increasingly libertarian America, the fascist front-runners of the Republican party are extremely horrifying to both liberals and moderate Republicans. People will vote for Bernie, so it's counterproductive to advocate pro-business Hillary's candidacy because she's the "safe" choice. She may not do as much harm as Trump, but electing her won't change a damn thing about the political system, which should be the most important concern for the American people.
The
crux of the issue is that Hillary is not special. She is not unlike
other Democratic politicians, which is to say that she is not unlike all
other politicians. In the United
States, politics are no longer about representing the people, they are
about representing donors and patrons. In the same way that a company is
responsible for the interests of their stock owners, a politician is
responsible for the interests of their donors. The people who get
mega-rich to the point that it's profitable to spend millions on
political campaigns are smart people. You don't court them by running
away with their money and ignoring their interests—you advocate for
them and help them. The American public, however, is generally considered by politicians to be quite dumb. To them, you
say whatever you need to to get votes.
Corruption isn't unique to a select number of candidates. Ignoring the American public's actual interests is the status quo. The opinions of the American public have ZERO provable impact on what Congress does. I don't use zero as a hyperbole, I use it as a number. There was a Princeton Study done that quantifies the correlation between the American public's interests and the laws that are passed, and in a world where our congresspeople represent us dutifully, you would expect 100% correlation. There is 0. Literally. Statistically there is 5% (8%) correlation between the views of the American people and the actions of Congress. The number in parentheses is standard error, so the real value is somewhere between -3% and 13%.
Does this mean Congress is just passing laws randomly? No. They do what the money tells them to do. Their actions match up quite well with those of wealthy Americans and pro-business interest groups. There is a 78% (8%) correlation between wealthy American interests and laws passed. You can find these numbers on page 12 of the study linked just above (page 575 by the journal's numbering).
On the same page, the authors explain the role of lobbying groups. According to their data, mass-based interest groups have 24% (7%) representation and business interest groups have 43% (8%) representation. They then explain how lobbying groups are exclusively representative of the wealthy, another tool for the top 1% to exert influence on Capitol Hill: "It is simply not the case that a host of diverse, broadly-based interest groups take policy stands—and bring about actual policies—that reflect what the general public wants. Interest groups as a whole do not seek the same policies as average citizens do. “Potential groups” do not fill the gap. Relatively few mass-based interest groups are active, they do not (in the aggregate) represent the public very well, and they have less collective impact on policy than do business-oriented groups—whose stands tend to be negatively related to the preferences of average citizens. These business groups are far more numerous and active; they spend much more money; and they tend to get their way."
This research inescapably shows us that the only way to achieve anything in government is by having a lot of money, consistent with a vision of politicians working for money and power above all else. The only way to know that a candidate is selectively representing the American people seems to be looking at whether their donors' interests match up with the interests of the American people.
Finally, the narrative of political corruption has been quantified: politicians don't court with business to better serve the American people, they court with business to establish a mutually profitable relationship between themselves and their donors. The individuals who court big business may or may not think that they are above the games, but the end result is indisputable. Whatever our Congresspeople intend to do, whatever they think they are doing, they are carrying out the plans of the economic elite; they are figureheads in the United States de facto oligarchy. This system that our Constitution has created has led to a world in which the individuals elected by the public are no longer representative of the American people. To call our country a democracy is a farce. Even to call it a republic is inaccurate, as a republic demands that elected officials represent the electorate, and this ideal is inconsistent with the effective allegiance of our elected officials.
If we want to change this system, it's not going to happen through Congress. Why would the people who currently have Congress in a stranglehold allow Congress to pass laws which reduce their power? Whatever we do to address the total corruption, it has to happen independent of the government. It must be implemented with grassroots. It must be created by and for The People.
The reason I support Bernie Sanders is not that I agree with all of his positions. I agree with many, but I think his outlook on military action is unnecessarily savage. No, I advocate for Bernie because he is fundamentally opposed to this corruption. He understands that government is no longer representing The People, and creating that change is his mission. He is the one presidential candidate who doesn't accept donations from big businesses. He is the ONLY candidate who stands for American democracy as a principle. That's what his campaign is about, and any of his other viewpoints are an extension of that fundamental difference between him and other politicians.
I believe we have the material conditions necessary for a civic system of direct democracy. We have seen the consequences of a capitalist constitutional republic: crony capitalism, and a complete loss of any democracy. With both the need and ability to move towards a more genuine democracy, it's important that we make this a priority in who we elect. Electing a president like Sanders, who openly stands against oligarchy, is an important step in fighting against institutionalized corruption. Whether or not he is elected, we will continue to be powerless as an electorate unless we mobilize a complete transformation of a government system that is inherently corruptible. We need to empower ourselves, and we have what is needed to sustain a roust democracy. Transitioning is the challenge, and to move in that direction, we need to create a massive shift in attitudes towards government.
That is why I don't humor democrats just because they support gay marriage. That is why I don't care about who gets elected to Congress. That is why I suggest we rewrite our Constitution. Sincerely internalizing our powerlessness in the current system is the first step towards regaining and holding onto democratic power.
Look at her top donors: they're major corporate interests. She regularly accepts large donations from questionable foreign parties, and spends time with them as a result. A while back, I posted a short summary of these on my Facebook. It is not unreasonable to suspect that she's willingly, albeit cleverly, working as a proxy for dubious puppeteers.
She's the perfect example of somebody who wants power for its own sake. Siding with the democratic party is he best way to do that, because the Republican party right now is blatantly on the wrong side of history. In the history books, their current antagonism towards queer people, towards women, towards people of color, and so on, will clearly be seen as barbaric, representative of the darker depths of human instinct.
For an understanding of how she treats fellow human beings when she's not on camera, read into how she treated secret service agents when in the White House.
There's also her regular acceptance of patronage from wealthy persons like Donald Trump. A patronage which forged a strong enough relationship between them to merit her attending his wedding. Listen to her speech about it and tell me you're convinced.
As much as she tries to distance herself from bankers and high finance, her wedding with Wall Street and Big Business is pretty well documented.
Then there's the fact that she's the beneficiary of clearly corrupt mainstream media silencing tactics, like CNN ignoring the results of their online poll, which revealed that viewers of the debate overwhelmingly thought Bernie won, so that they could unflinchingly declare that Hillary won the debate.
It's even hard to defend the notion that she votes based on her own values—unless her views on civil rights have only existed since 2013, when she first declared her support for legalizing gay marriage. Otherwise, why would she have supported Don't Ask Don't Tell, then recanted her support later on? Her values changed? "Everybody changed since the 1990's?" Please. There were tons of people who legitimately advocated for gay rights before it was the cool thing to do. Such as Bernie.
Hillary vs. Bernie on gay rights
At this point, you might be suspecting that none of these arguments are really condemning. Surely, they can be explained somehow, and there must be a reason for all of this. Well, if you can explain away flat-out lying, then you probably have a problem and you should start working through the next four stages of grief.
In modern America's first-past-the-post, two-party voting system, which lends itself to severe instances of "strategic voting", there is one argument that trumps all the others in this presidential election cycle: don't vote Trump. The virtues of the candidates seem to be less important than their ability to defeat Trump on a presidential ballot. But if we take an honest look at the political climate, this line of reasoning falls apart as an unfounded fear tactic. A Democrat won the previous election, he won reelection, and he wasn't disgraced by any personal or national scandal. This automatically bodes well for whatever democratic candidate is elected. As the incumbent party, the Democrats have better access to powerful networks of data and organization than the Republicans, who are falling apart at the seams trying to deal with their circus of primary candidates. And with an increasingly libertarian America, the fascist front-runners of the Republican party are extremely horrifying to both liberals and moderate Republicans. People will vote for Bernie, so it's counterproductive to advocate pro-business Hillary's candidacy because she's the "safe" choice. She may not do as much harm as Trump, but electing her won't change a damn thing about the political system, which should be the most important concern for the American people.
Corruption: The Bigger Picture
Corruption isn't unique to a select number of candidates. Ignoring the American public's actual interests is the status quo. The opinions of the American public have ZERO provable impact on what Congress does. I don't use zero as a hyperbole, I use it as a number. There was a Princeton Study done that quantifies the correlation between the American public's interests and the laws that are passed, and in a world where our congresspeople represent us dutifully, you would expect 100% correlation. There is 0. Literally. Statistically there is 5% (8%) correlation between the views of the American people and the actions of Congress. The number in parentheses is standard error, so the real value is somewhere between -3% and 13%.
Does this mean Congress is just passing laws randomly? No. They do what the money tells them to do. Their actions match up quite well with those of wealthy Americans and pro-business interest groups. There is a 78% (8%) correlation between wealthy American interests and laws passed. You can find these numbers on page 12 of the study linked just above (page 575 by the journal's numbering).
On the same page, the authors explain the role of lobbying groups. According to their data, mass-based interest groups have 24% (7%) representation and business interest groups have 43% (8%) representation. They then explain how lobbying groups are exclusively representative of the wealthy, another tool for the top 1% to exert influence on Capitol Hill: "It is simply not the case that a host of diverse, broadly-based interest groups take policy stands—and bring about actual policies—that reflect what the general public wants. Interest groups as a whole do not seek the same policies as average citizens do. “Potential groups” do not fill the gap. Relatively few mass-based interest groups are active, they do not (in the aggregate) represent the public very well, and they have less collective impact on policy than do business-oriented groups—whose stands tend to be negatively related to the preferences of average citizens. These business groups are far more numerous and active; they spend much more money; and they tend to get their way."
This research inescapably shows us that the only way to achieve anything in government is by having a lot of money, consistent with a vision of politicians working for money and power above all else. The only way to know that a candidate is selectively representing the American people seems to be looking at whether their donors' interests match up with the interests of the American people.
Finally, the narrative of political corruption has been quantified: politicians don't court with business to better serve the American people, they court with business to establish a mutually profitable relationship between themselves and their donors. The individuals who court big business may or may not think that they are above the games, but the end result is indisputable. Whatever our Congresspeople intend to do, whatever they think they are doing, they are carrying out the plans of the economic elite; they are figureheads in the United States de facto oligarchy. This system that our Constitution has created has led to a world in which the individuals elected by the public are no longer representative of the American people. To call our country a democracy is a farce. Even to call it a republic is inaccurate, as a republic demands that elected officials represent the electorate, and this ideal is inconsistent with the effective allegiance of our elected officials.
What's Next?
The reason I support Bernie Sanders is not that I agree with all of his positions. I agree with many, but I think his outlook on military action is unnecessarily savage. No, I advocate for Bernie because he is fundamentally opposed to this corruption. He understands that government is no longer representing The People, and creating that change is his mission. He is the one presidential candidate who doesn't accept donations from big businesses. He is the ONLY candidate who stands for American democracy as a principle. That's what his campaign is about, and any of his other viewpoints are an extension of that fundamental difference between him and other politicians.
I believe we have the material conditions necessary for a civic system of direct democracy. We have seen the consequences of a capitalist constitutional republic: crony capitalism, and a complete loss of any democracy. With both the need and ability to move towards a more genuine democracy, it's important that we make this a priority in who we elect. Electing a president like Sanders, who openly stands against oligarchy, is an important step in fighting against institutionalized corruption. Whether or not he is elected, we will continue to be powerless as an electorate unless we mobilize a complete transformation of a government system that is inherently corruptible. We need to empower ourselves, and we have what is needed to sustain a roust democracy. Transitioning is the challenge, and to move in that direction, we need to create a massive shift in attitudes towards government.
That is why I don't humor democrats just because they support gay marriage. That is why I don't care about who gets elected to Congress. That is why I suggest we rewrite our Constitution. Sincerely internalizing our powerlessness in the current system is the first step towards regaining and holding onto democratic power.
No comments:
Post a Comment