As groups compete to shape public policy, the government is a relatively neutral referee that ensures the competition is fair; it is not the instrument of any particular group or class there is a dispersion of power, of resources, and of benefits from policy decisions, not a pattern of "structural inequality." Everyone wins some and loses some, but the losers can always win on the next issue.
-253 Understanding the Political World
it is so frustrating to come upon such blatant propaganda...no wonders people sit idly back
too tired to be really critical and to expand upon the implications of such a statement within an educational text book
8 comments:
Let me help you debunk this deplorable manipulation of the learning youth. This passage seems to imply the timeless adage that the government is "for the people and by the people". The reality that even the most radical and "virtues" politicians are afraid to address is the fact that we don't live in that type of democracy, we live in a democracy "by some of the people and for some of the people".
In 2004, only 48 percent of people making less than $20,000 a year voted, whereas 81 percent of people making over $100,000 participated in voting. Only 56 percent of people with a high school diploma voted where 84 percent of people with advanced college degrees voted.
This statistic illustrates how those with silver spoons and advanced degrees(mostly both, rarely just one) are coming to dominate policy in our government. Though I just gave a voter turn statistic if you did research you would find that the richer individuals and institutions also contribute significantly more to campaign funds and volunteer more time. In effect our delegates represent more a coalitions of dollars than of individuals. Unopposed this trend will morph what is theatricality a very humanistic democracy into a self serving oligarchy. While this may seem like a bold assertion it is disturbingly easy to justify. Some things to consider in that regard: America has one of the largest disparities between rich and poor people in the world(not just of industrialized countries)! America spends hundreds of billions of dollers annually, domestically and internationally, on special interests; these entities include but certainly arnt limited to tobacco/oil companys(uhh...), the corn industry(this one goes out to my home boy micheal pollen), and egypt(?? I was just as surprised). Not only does our government give our tax dollers(thanks to goerge bush mostly lower/middle class tax dollers) to these enities, not only do they have disproportionate clout in our elections, but more and more often they come to rule the legal system. The fact that 2 seed companies genetically own 94% percent of crop plants in america(and have modified them not to produce fertile seeds), the fact that Exxon managed to pay only 5000$ to each member of 3 small fishing towns to compensate for the PERMANENT loss of their lively hoods, reflect the ability of those with economic resources to buy the expertise and the connections necessary to warp law in their favor. Dante you could probably contribute better examples but I think theses ones are sufficient.
Some people might argue that those who are ignorant and poor, at some level, dont deserve to vote. I say that just because you have a degree from harverd(like GWB) or have six digit salary doesnt mean you are a more qualified voter. In fact who better to understand the importance of accessible health care than a single mother making 20k a year. Who better to understand TRUELY the nature of gun control than those immersed in dangerouse innner city conditions. They may not have degrees in astro physics but they are reasoning human beings living the policies that, unfortunately, the elite dictate. In other words, poor and uneducated people should vote.
Now I guess I get to the real point. As Dante pointed out "people sit idly back", they're apathetic bastards that deserve what they get... scrrewww yyyoouuu Daanntee! People are not indifferent! people are not detached! People are not apathetic, they're fucking ALIENATED! How could someone who is tormented by gang violence be indifferent to gun control? how could people who scrabble an existence out of minimum wage be uninterested in progressive/regressive taxation? the difference in taxation methods to a rich person is, at least, the difference between a a lexus and a Lamborghini. Despite the poor mans extreme intimacy and investment in these issues he realizes that the system no longer responds to his voice and saves his resources for other endeavors.
My question is... what would a system look like that ACTUALLY gave political power to individual consciousnesses as opposed to concentrations of money? And how to we get to that system starting where we are?
Haha, in case you guys were wondering the character limit for a post is 4096
wow...that was shocking...you nathan....nice
here i'll post something just for you.
Nice post Nathan. To back you up: at the end of the 1700s in the U.S., over 60% of people were self-employed independent producers of goods, and owned the capital (money and resources) used in production. 30% of laborers/workers were slaves, 3% were slave owners, and 1% were capitalists (the distinction being made is that slave owners and capitalists both owned the capital goods used in production and controlled the labor of others). Today, the upper class remains about the same, i.e. 5% of the population controls the labor of others and owns the capital goods used in production, but only 12% are self-emplyed independent producers, while 54% of workers neither control the work of others or own the capital goods used in production. The remaining 29% control the labor of others but do not own capital goods. Talk about alienation! When this country was founded, most people had direct control over their economic output, but now only 17% control the money and goods that we use to produce our GNP. So we've moved from self-determination being the norm to it being the exception. And who doesn't vote? Poor people. The conclusion: capitalism eliminates the effectiveness of democracy.
Thanks Matt. This is an interesting point and I believe it to be true however this statistic may be misleading in magnitude in that it might not account for the human capital of a college degree... In an increasingly professional and specialized society the expertise people posses can be just as much a commodity or "capital" as physical things. Speaking of human capital, ey, what what govenuh, have you gotten to take any econ classes yet?
Yeah, I'm taking intro to economics right now. It's not a standard macro/micro split approach; more of a political economy/historical kinda thing. Not a lot of math, which is pretty disappointing, because most of the people in the class can't do the most basic calculus (which should probably be a prerequisite for economics, especially a 200-level class). But it's helped me realize that I don't want to concentrate on economics, so that's good. Too much of economic theory is based around bullshit assumptions about frictionless markets and human behavior. Behavioral economics and game theory is pretty interesting though.
Post a Comment